Transfer of a criminal trial requires a reasonable, bona fide apprehension supported by objective material.

The petitioner, the prosecutrix/victim, sought transfer under Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) of Sessions Trial No. 22/2024, arising from Crime No. 103/2023 registered at Police Station Jatara for offences including Section 376 IPC, from the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jatara, District Tikamgarh, to another competent court or district.

She alleged that her father-in-law and brother-in-law had sexually harassed and raped her after her husband became physically incapacitated, leading to registration of the FIR.

The petitioner apprehended that she would not receive a fair trial because the same Presiding Officer had made observations concerning the allegations in separate matrimonial proceedings, particularly in RCSHM No. 45/2025, and had allegedly made oral observations during the criminal trial suggesting a preconceived view regarding the accused persons’ innocence.

The State and private respondents opposed transfer, contending that the apprehension was unsupported by objective material and that the criminal trial had substantially progressed, with most witnesses already examined.

Whether the petitioner had established a reasonable, bona fide, and objectively supported apprehension that she would not receive a fair and impartial trial before the concerned Additional Sessions Judge, warranting transfer under Section 447 BNSS?

Whether observations made by the same Judge in separate matrimonial proceedings, and allegedly made orally during the criminal trial, constituted sufficient grounds for transferring the criminal case?

Whether the advanced stage of the criminal trial militated against ordering transfer in the absence of compelling or exceptional circumstances?

The Court applied Section 447 BNSS, which empowers the High Court to transfer criminal proceedings where the statutory requirements for transfer are satisfied.

It held that transfer of a criminal case is an extraordinary remedy and cannot be ordered on the basis of conjectures, subjective perceptions, or a mere apprehension of bias; the apprehension must be reasonable, bona fide, and founded on cogent and objective circumstances that would lead a prudent person to doubt the possibility of a fair trial.

The Court also recognised that fair trial is part of the guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution, but clarified that this principle does not justify transfer without objective material indicating a real likelihood of denial of justice.

Findings in independent matrimonial proceedings must be assessed in the context of those proceedings and do not, by themselves, establish prejudgment in a pending criminal trial.

The Court further considered the principle of expeditious trial, holding that transfer at an advanced stage should not be ordered absent compelling circumstances.

The Court found that the observations in the matrimonial judgment were made while adjudicating disputes between the parties on the pleadings and evidence available in that proceeding.

Their existence did not establish that the trial Judge had prejudged the criminal allegations, since judicial officers are required to decide each proceeding independently on its own evidence.

The allegation of adverse oral observations during the criminal trial was also unsupported because the petitioner produced no order sheet or judicial order recording any concluded opinion regarding the guilt or innocence of the accused.

The petitioner’s apprehension was therefore based principally on inferences drawn from separate proceedings, rather than demonstrable bias or a real likelihood of an unfair trial.

Moreover, the trial had substantially progressed and almost all witnesses had been examined; transfer at that stage would cause delay and undermine expeditious adjudication in the absence of exceptional circumstances.

Observations in the matrimonial proceedings and unsubstantiated allegations of oral remarks during trial were insufficient to justify transfer under Section 447 BNSS.

The petition seeking transfer of Sessions Trial No. 22/2024 was accordingly dismissed.

However, the trial Court was directed to decide the criminal case strictly on the basis of the evidence adduced before it and without being influenced by observations made in any other proceedings between the parties.