TARUN RAJ SINGH Vs. RAM BAHADUR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Ram Bahadur Singh learned counsel for the applicant, Shri N.D. Rai learned Additional Government Advocate-1st assisted by Shri Virendra Kumar Maurya learned A.G.A. for the state of U.P./ opposite party no.1 and perused the record.

(2.) This transfer application u/s 407 Cr.P.C . has been moved by applicant with the prayer to transfer the bail application No. 693 of 2019 (State Vs. Chandra Kumar Mishra), under Sections 323 , 307 , 504 , 506 IPC and 3(2)5 SC/ ST Act , Police Station Cantt., District Bareilly from the court of Special Judge SC/ST Bareilly to any other competent court of District court Bareilly.

(3.) Relevant facts of the case in brief as mentioned by the applicant in the present application are that the applicant is complainant, who has filed complaint dated 20.05.2016 against opposite party no.2 (Chandra Kumar Mishra) for the alleged offence under Sections 323 , 325 , 307 , 357 IPC and 3(2)5 SC/ ST Act , on which opposite party no.2 was summoned vide order dated 19.04.2018 by Special Judge, SC/ ST Act , Bareilly to face trial. On 05.10.2019, opposite party no.2 filed his bail application praying therein to release him on bail. Thereafter applicant filed transfer application dated 11.10.2019 before District and Sessions Judge, Bareilly alleging that accused persons told the applicant that they are Brahmin by caste and the concerned Presiding Officer, who is their distant relative is also Brahmin by caste, therefore, they will get the relief from that court. It is also alleged that the opposite party no.2 has been spotted on several occasions by the applicant while coming out of the Court of the concerned judge and prayed therein to transfer bail application of opposite party no.2 from the court of Special Judge SC/ST Bareilly to any other competent court. On the aforesaid transfer application of the applicant, comment was called from the concerned presiding officer by the District Judge, Bareilly, who in turn submitted his report mentioning that apprehension expressed by the applicant is baseless, imaginary and fabricated. Neither he has any concern with the accused or complainant nor has any relation with them. On behalf of opposite party no.2 oral objection was raised before the District Judge, Bareilly, who after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned rejected the transfer application (3 ka) of the applicant vide order dated 20.02.2020. Grounds of transfer of case as mentioned in transfer application are reproduced here in below:- ....[VARNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]....