DEEPA SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is one of the accused persons in Giddi P.S. Case No.9 of 2001 which was registered for the offence under Sections 452, 342, 302, 201 r/w 34 IPC, seeks transfer of the proceeding in S.T.Case No.3 of 2003 from the court of Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Hazaribagh to a competent court of jurisdiction at Ramgarh.

(2.) Main ground taken by the petitioner for transfer of S.T.Case No.3 of 2003 to the court at Ramgarh is that after re-organization of the Hazaribagh Sessions Division vide Notification dated 01.10.2015 the place of occurrence which is Manjhila Chumba now falls under the newly created Ramgarh Sessions Division and, therefore, the Sessions Court at Hazaribagh has no jurisdiction to try S.T.Case No.3 of 2003. The petitioner has also taken a plea of inconvenience caused to him in defending himself in a court at Hazaribagh.

(3.) In so far as, the plea taken by the petitioner that it would be inconvenient for him to defend himself if trial of S.T.Case No.3 of 2003 continues at the Sessions Court, Hazaribagh, it needs to be indicated that such a plea has been taken by the petitioner mid-way; the case has been committed to the court of sessions and all along the petitioner defended himself when the matter was pending in the Sessions Court, Hazaribagh. Moreover, a bald statement by an accused, that it would be inconvenient for him to defend himself if the trial continues at a particular place, cannot be a ground to transfer a criminal case from one sessions division to another sessions division. Foundational facts for establishing inconvenience to the petitioner are lacking in the transfer petition.