Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kavala Satyanarayana vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 19 February, 2026
APHC010074342026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3397]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA
KRISHNA RAO
TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 31/2026
Between:
1. KAVALA SATYANARAYANA, S/O. K. KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED
ABOUT 46 YEARS,OCCUPATION CAR MECHANIC, R/O.1-30,
CHINNA GUDI VEEDHI, VALLURU VILLAGE,GANAPAVARAM
MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, PIN - 534197.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGHCOURT OF A.P., AMARAVATHI, THROUGH
THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,NARASAPU TOWN POLICE
STATION, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRAPRADESH.
2. M V V JAGAN MOHAN RAO, S/O. NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT NOT
KNOWNR/O. NARSAPUR MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH.
...RESPONDENT(S):
pleased to transfer the SC No.73 of 2022 pending on the file of Hon'ble
Assistant Sessions Judge, Narsapur,West Godavari District and to transfer
the same to the Sessions court in Vijayawada city and to pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2026
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased
pleased to stay all further proceedings in SC No.73 of 2022 pending on the
file of Hon'ble Assistant Sessions Judge, Narsapur,West Godavari District, to
the Sessions court in Vijayawada city, pending disposal of the above Tr.CrI.P
pending disposal of the above transfer criminal petition and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. D TARAKA PRASAD
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.31 of 2026
ORDER:
The petitioner herein filed the present petition under Section 447 of B.N.S.S., Act, 2023, seeking transfer of S.C.No.73 of 2022, on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Narsapur, West Godavari District, to the file of the Sessions Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District, for trial and disposal of the same.
2. Heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1/State.
3. Perused the material available on record.
4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor brought to the notice of this Court that the case against accused Nos.3 to 5 was abated by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Narsapur, in view of the death of accused Nos.3 to 5, and the accused No.1 was convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Narsapur. He further contended that, in view of the non-appearance of the present petitioner/accused No.2, the case against the petitioner/accused No.2 was pending and a non-bailable warrant was issued against him. Subsequently, he filed a petition to recall the non-bailable warrant, and the same was allowed by the Sessions Court. Now the case is pending before the said Court.
5. The first ground urged by the petitioner for seeking transfer of the said S.C.No.73 of 2022, from Narsapur to Vijayawada, is that the distance between Vijayawada & Narsapur is approximately 146kms, and the petitioner is currently working as a car mechanic at Vijayawada. He contends that it is extremely difficult for him to travel and attend the Court proceedings on each and every adjournment before the said Court at Narsapur.
6. The law is well settled that every offence shall ordinarily be enquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction, it was committed. The cause of action and alleged offence as per the 'First Information Report' are alleged to have arisen within the jurisdiction of the concerned Court i.e. Assistant Sessions Court at Narsapur.
7. Admittedly, S.C. No. 73 of 2022 is pending on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Narsapur, which Court has got jurisdiction to try the said Sessions Case. Another ground urged by the petitioner in seeking transfer of the said Sessions Case is that he is under a reasonable apprehension that he may not receive a fair and impartial trial before the said Court, as respondent No.2 is a Sub-Inspector of Police.
8. It is also well settled that "the apprehension of not getting a fair and impartial enquiry or trial is required to be reasonable and not imaginary, based upon conjunctures and surmises." No universal or hard and fast rules can be prescribed for deciding a transfer petition which has always to be decided on the basis of the facts of the each case. Convenience of the parties including the witnesses to be produced at the time of trial is also a relevant consideration for deciding the transfer petition. The convenience of the parties does not necessarily mean, the convenience of the petitioner/accused alone who approached the Court on misconceived notions of apprehensions.
9. It is an undisputed fact that all the witnesses in the said Sessions Case vide S.C.No.73 of 2022, are residing within the jurisdiction of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Narsapur. In case, if the matter is transferred from Narsapur to Vijayawada, the witnesses would face difficulties in appearing before the Court at Vijayawada, which is situated at a distance of more than 100Kms. The law is also well settled that the convenience for the purposes of transfer means the convenience of the prosecution, other accused, the witnesses and the larger interest of the society.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any grounds to allow the present petition and accordingly, the Transfer Criminal Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending and the Interim order granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________ JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO Date: 19.02.2026 CVD