MOHD. AKHTAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave against an order of the High Court of Allahabad dated 15th April 1965 rejecting in limini an application for transfer of a criminal case from the district of Bijnor. The appellant is being prosecuted for offences under Sections 376/511 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The prosecution charge against him is that he had attempted to commit rape on a small girl namad Kumari Saroj in his shop situated in Bijnor city at about 8 p.m. on April 28, 1964, when she had gone to purchase some silk yarn. Prior to this an application was made to get the case transferred to another State but on second thoughts transfer to another district is now claimed. The petition for transfer in the High Court was made on the ground that the case has started communal passions in Bijnor and there was danger to the life of appellant and that no lawyer of any standing was willing to take up the case since Shri Nagendra Chandra, father of Kumari Saroj is a clerk of one of the leading Advocates of Bijnor. In support of his petition the appellant pleaded that even the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) Bijnor and the Sessions Judge, while granting bail imposed a condition that he should not visit Bijnor town or any other place within a radius of five miles of the limits of Bijnor Municipality except to attend the court on the dates fixed for trial. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that in this condition there is an admission of his complaint of the communal situation in Bijnor city.

(3.) Mr. O. P. Rana contended that the petition for transfer deserved to be dismissed and submitted that the order of the Sessions Judge granting bail on the above terms was merely a repetition of the order originally made by the Additional District Magistrate and the situation during this time had considerably altered. He further submitted that there was no allegation in the case that the appellant would not get a fair trial at the hands of the Sessions Judge in Bijnor. Learned Counsel for the appellant frankly conceded that his client had not grounded the petition on any complaint against the judiciary as such. He contented that his client was more concerned with his own safety than anything else. He relied strongly upon the apprehensions of both the Additional District Magistrate and the Sessions Judge which indicated that the apprehensions might not be unfounded.