The High Court of Chhattisgarh, in a significant order, has dismissed a petition seeking the transfer of a criminal trial from a Special Judge’s court. Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha held that a transfer cannot be granted based on a “mere presumption of possible apprehension” or vague allegations of bias against a presiding officer. The Court ruled that any such apprehension must be bona fide, reasonable, and substantiated by concrete material, which was found lacking in the present case.
Case Background
The matter originated from a criminal trial, State Vs. Dileshwar Sahu & Others (Criminal Special Atrocities Case No. 46/2023), pending before the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, in Raipur. The petitioner, Chandrashekhar Agrawal, sought to transfer this case to another competent court, either within Raipur or a nearby district.
The prosecution’s case began with a written complaint filed by the victim (respondent No. 3), an advocate and a member of a scheduled caste. She alleged that accused Parmeshwar Sahu, whom she knew from her law studies, had established a physical relationship with her on the false pretext of marriage, despite knowing her caste. She stated that he later refused to marry her but continued the physical intercourse without her consent, resulting in a nine-month pregnancy.
Based on her complaint, an FIR was registered on June 23, 2023, under Sections 376 and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against Parmeshwar Sahu. In a subsequent statement recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the victim also alleged that other accused persons had attempted to forcibly administer a poisonous substance to her.
Initially, a charge-sheet was filed on August 20, 2023, only against accused Dileshwar Sahu. The main accused, Parmeshwar Sahu, along with Ramnath Sahu and Neha Sahu, were listed as absconders. The charge-sheet mentioned that the investigation concerning the role of the present petitioner, Chandrashekhar Agrawal, an advocate, was pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.
The petitioner’s application for anticipatory bail was dismissed by the Special Judge on March 25, 2025. He was subsequently arrested on April 8, 2025, and his regular bail application was also rejected by the same judge. Later, a supplementary charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner and other accused on June 26, 2025.
Petitioner’s Grounds for Transfer
The petitioner, Chandrashekhar Agrawal, moved the High Court under Section 447 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The central ground for seeking the transfer was the petitioner’s claim that the learned Special Judge harboured a “personal bias” against him and that he had been “falsely implicated in the present case” upon the judge’s instruction.
The Court’s Analysis
The High Court, presided over by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, initiated its analysis by calling for comments from the concerned Special Judge. The judge reported that he was conducting the proceedings “impartially in a completely legal manner” and had taken no illegal action against the petitioner. The judge’s comments clarified that the victim herself had expressed her unwillingness to record her statement until a charge-sheet was presented against all accused, including the petitioner. It was upon the victim’s written application that the court sought a report from the investigating officer, who subsequently found a prima facie case against the petitioner, leading to his arrest and the filing of a supplementary charge-sheet.
Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha observed that transferring a case, especially on grounds of allegations against a presiding officer, is a “serious matter” that “indirectly causes doubt on the integrity and competence of Presiding Officer”. The Court underscored that the “onus is heavy” on the applicant to prove that the apprehension of bias is “bona fide and reasonable” and substantiated by material evidence.
The judgment referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in Maneka Sanjay Gandhi Vs. Rani Jethmalani, (1979) Cri.L.J. 458 (SC), which established that the basis for a transfer must be more than mere “hypersensitivity or relative convenience of a party.” The Supreme Court had held, “Something more substantial, more compelling, more imperiling, from the point of view of public justice and its attendant environment, is necessitous if the Court is to exercise its power of transfer.”
The High Court further stated, “Mere suspicion by the party that he will not get justice would not justify transfer,” and that “A judicial order made by a Judge legitimately cannot be made foundation for a transfer of case.” The Court warned against making “reckless false allegations” against judicial officers, emphasizing that such actions must be met with a “strict and cautious” approach to protect the “majesty of institution of justice.”
Applying these legal principles to the facts, the Court found the petitioner’s grounds to be “vague and wholly unsubstantiated.” The record established that the chain of events leading to the petitioner’s implication arose from the victim’s protest in court and the subsequent investigation, not from any biased action by the judge.
Decision of the Court
In its final determination, the High Court held that an adverse judicial order, by itself, is not sufficient to justify a transfer on the grounds of bias unless substantiated by relevant material. The Court noted, “The allegation of bias by mere fact of an adverse order is not sufficient to justify transfer unless it is also substantiated by relevant material, which is not the case in hand.”
Finding no valid grounds for interference, the Court dismissed the petition, stating it was “devoid of merits.”
