Chhattisgarh High Court: In a transfer petition filed under Section 447 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023(‘BNSS’) for the transfer of a special criminal case pending before the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Raipur (‘Special Judge’), to any other Competent Court on the ground that the Special Judge had personal bias against the present accused, an advocate, and the accused was falsely implicated upon his instruction, the Single Judge Bench of Ramesh Sinha, CJ., dismissed the petition, holding that the allegation of bias merely due to an adverse order was not sufficient to justify transfer unless it was also substantiated by relevant material, which was not the case in the matter at hand.
Background
According to the victim, a member of the Scheduled Caste, she got acquainted with respondent 5, the prime accused, during her law degree. In 2019, the prime accused proposed to her and subjected her to physical relations on the pretext of marriage. Thereafter, he refused to marry her, but continued physical intercourse without her consent, due to which she became pregnant. Aggrieved, she lodged an FIR under Section 376, 376(2)(n) of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) against the prime accused.
During the investigation, the victim narrated the same story and further made statements against the other accused persons, claiming that they had accompanied the prime accused in forcibly administering some poisonous substance to kill her. Accordingly, an FIR was lodged against the other three co-accused. A charge sheet was presented before the Special Judge regarding one of the co-accused. In the said charge sheet, the prime accused and two other co-accused were mentioned to be absconding, and the role of the present accused was stated to be still under investigation. Thereafter, all the other accused were granted bail.
Apprehending from his arrest, the present accused filed an anticipatory bail application before the Special Judge, which was dismissed. Thereafter, he appealed the said rejection, but before his plea could be heard, he was arrested and produced before the Special Judge. Thus, the accused filed a regular bail application, but that too was dismissed by the Special Judge.
Aggrieved, he filed the present petition.
The Court vide order dated 12-06-2025 (‘previous order’) had called for comments from the Special Judge. The Special Judge stated the following:
- The criminal case was being heard by him impartially in a completely legal manner, and he did not take any illegal action against the accused herein.
- The Former Presiding Officer had started the trial only against one of the co-accused, without presenting the charge sheet against the prime accused and two other co-accused. During the trial, when the victim appeared before the present Special Judge, she expressed her desire not to record her statement in the Court due to non-presentation of the charge sheet against the remaining accused persons, including the prime accused.
- When the Special Judge sought a report from the Investigating Officer (‘IO’) regarding the charge-sheet, the accused herein again tried to delay the investigation.
-
Thereafter, the IO found a prima facie case against the accused and arrested him. A supplementary charge sheet was filed against the accused herein and other accused after the Court passed the previous order.
Analysis
At the outset, the Court stated that the transfer of cases from one Court to another is a serious matter, particularly when transfer is sought by making allegations against the Presiding Officer. It sometimes indirectly causes doubt on the integrity and competence of the Presiding Officer of the Court from whom the matter is transferred. In cases where the ground for transfer is the likelihood of bias of the Presiding Officer, it is an onerous duty of the Court to see whether such ground has been substantiated with reasonable certainty or not.
The Court reiterated that in cases where there are allegations of bias by the Presiding Officer, the Courts have to be very careful while transferring. The Court must be satisfied that the apprehension of bias or prejudice is bona fide and reasonable; it must be proved or substantiated by circumstances and material placed by such applicant before the Court. A judicial order made by a Judge legitimately cannot be the foundation for a transfer of a case. Mere presumption of possible apprehension should not and ought not be the basis of the transfer of any case from one Court to another.
The Court further stated that in the matters where reckless false allegations are made to seek some favourable order, either in a transfer application, or otherwise, the Court’s approach must be strict and cautious to find out whether the allegations are bona fide, and if treated to be prima facie true, can be believed to be correct by any person of ordinary prudence in those circumstances. A strict approach is required to maintain not only discipline in the Courts of law but also to protect Judicial Officers and maintain their self-esteem and confidence, and above all, the majesty of the institution of justice.
“The justice delivery system knows no caste, religion, creed, colour, etc. It is a system following the principle of black and white, i.e., truth and false. Whatever is unfair, that is identified and given its due treatment, and whatever is good is retained.”
The Court added that if there is a deliberate attempt to scandalize a Judicial Officer of the District Court, the damage is caused not only to the reputation of the Judge concerned, but also to the fair name of the judiciary.
“The foundation of our system is based on the independence and impartiality of the men having responsibility to impart justice, i.e., Judicial Officers. If their confidence, impartiality, and reputation are shaken, it is bound to affect the very independence of the judiciary.”
In this regard, the Court referred to Amit Agrawal v. Atul Gupta, 2014 SCC OnLine All 16200.
“Any person, if allowed to make disparaging and derogatory remarks against a Judicial Officer, with impunity, is bound to result in breaking down the majesty of justice.”
The Court also remarked,
“There is no manner in which a judicial officer may wear his impartiality on his sleeves.”
Upon examination of the present case, the Court stated that the grounds taken by the accused were vague and wholly unsubstantiated. The Court also agreed with the Single Judge’s reply as it was substantiated by the record.
The Court held that the allegation of bias merely due to an adverse order was not sufficient to justify transfer unless it was also substantiated by relevant material, which was not the case in the matter at hand.
Accordingly, the petition, being devoid of merits and any good ground for interference, was dismissed.
[Chandrashekhar Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh, TPCR No. 14 of 2025, decided on 14-07-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Senior Advocate Kishore Bhaduri and Kishore Narayan
For the respondent: Govt. Advocate Jitendra Shrivastava, Goutam Khetrapal, Arvind Prasad, and Pragalbh Sharma
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
