Chattisgarh High Court
Balkrishna Jangde vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 February, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:7888
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
TPCR No. 5 of 2026
1 - Balkrishna Jangde S/o Late Brijlal Jangde Aged About 38 Years R/o
Village Temri, P.S. Nandghat, District Bemetara, Presently H.I.G. 1 /13
Pirda Housing Board, P.S. Vidhansabha, District Raipur, C.G.
2 - Anjana Jangde W/o Balkrishna Jangde Aged About 38 Years R/o
Village Temri, P.S. Nandghat, District Bemetara, Presently H.I.G. 1 /13
Pirda Housing Board, P.S. Vidhansabha, District Raipur, C.G.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Police Station Tilda Nevra,
Raipur, District Raipur, C.G.
2 - X Y Z Nil
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Renu Kochar, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1/State. : Ms. Palak Dwivedi, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
12/02/2026
1. Heard Ms. Renu Kochar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Palak Dwivedi, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondent No.1/State.
2
2. The present petition under Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "BNSS") seeks transfer of Session Trial No. 235/2021 from the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Raipur (C.G.) to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.).
3. Brief facts according to the petitioners are that the present case arises out of a written complaint lodged by Khilendra Kumar Verma on 15.03.2021 at Police Station Tilda Nevra, registered as Crime No. 109/2021 under Sections 307, 454 and 354 of the IPC against an unknown person. It was alleged that on the same day at about 11:45 AM, an unknown person entered the house of the victim, threatened her at knife point with intent to sexually assault her and caused injuries. The victim was taken to the hospital, and the FIR was accordingly registered. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the present petitioner and others. The learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raipur took cognizance and framed charges under Sections 307, 454, 354, 376, 376(2)(n), 120-B, 201 and 34 IPC. The prosecution cited 30 witnesses. During trial, certain prosecution witnesses were examined. It is alleged that procedural irregularities occurred, including examination of a subordinate employee in place of the Nodal Officer and alleged threats to the applicant within court premises on 14.01.2026. The applicant's complaint regarding threats was allegedly not acted upon by the trial Court, whereas a complaint made by a prosecution witness was 3 promptly forwarded for registration of a case. Out of 30 prosecution witnesses, 18 have been examined and 4 were given up. Only police witnesses remain to be examined. The applicant alleges irregularity in recording evidence, including examination of the Investigating Officer out of sequence and imposition of transportation expenses for a witness despite limited time for cross-examination.
4. It is further alleged that after the Special Public Prosecutor was relieved, the counsel for the victim was permitted to assist under Section 301(2) Cr.P.C., creating an apprehension of bias and prejudice to the accused. The opportunity to cross-examine an important witness (P.W.2 - the informant/husband of the victim) was initially curtailed, but later restored by this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 1737/2025. The applicant also alleges that statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were not properly recorded, adequate opportunity of hearing was not granted, and certain prosecution witnesses were issued warrants during pendency of cross- examination of other witnesses. It is further contended that CCTV footage allegedly relating to the incident was not properly shown to the accused, and that the footage was altered. The request to display the complete footage was allegedly denied. On these grounds, alleging bias, procedural irregularities and violation of principles of natural justice, the petitioner has filed a transfer petition seeking transfer of Sessions Trial No. 235/2021 pending before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raipur. 4
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned trial Court has conducted the proceedings in a manner giving rise to a reasonable and bona fide apprehension of bias and prejudice against the petitioner, thereby shaking the confidence of the accused in receiving a fair and impartial trial. Serious procedural irregularities have occurred, including examination of a subordinate employee in place of the designated Nodal Officer in relation to electronic evidence and examination of the Investigating Officer out of proper sequence, which has materially prejudiced the defence. Further, despite allegations of threats extended to the petitioner within the Court premises on 14.01.2026, the complaint submitted by the petitioner was not acted upon, whereas a complaint made by a prosecution witness was promptly forwarded for registration of a case, reflecting discriminatory treatment and denial of equal protection in the conduct of trial.
6. She further submits that out of 30 cited prosecution witnesses, 18 have already been examined and 4 have been given up, and only official/police witnesses remain to be examined, the proceedings have been conducted in undue haste and with procedural impropriety, adversely affecting the petitioner's right to effectively defend himself. The valuable right of cross-examination of P.W.2 (informant/husband of the victim) was initially curtailed without sufficient cause and was restored only upon intervention of the Hon'ble High Court in Cr.M.P. No. 1737/2025, which itself 5 demonstrates denial of fair opportunity at the trial stage. Moreover, statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were not properly and comprehensively recorded, and adequate opportunity of hearing was not granted. Warrants were also issued against certain prosecution witnesses during pendency of cross-examination of other witnesses, indicating irregular and prejudicial conduct of proceedings.
7. She also submits that the CCTV footage allegedly relating to the incident was neither properly nor completely shown to the petitioner, and there exists a genuine apprehension that the footage has been altered or selectively presented, the request to display the complete footage was declined, thereby causing serious prejudice to the defence. Further, after the Special Public Prosecutor was relieved, the counsel for the victim was permitted to assist under Section 301(2) Cr.P.C. in a manner creating a reasonable apprehension that the prosecution is being conducted in a partisan and prejudicial manner. The cumulative effect of the aforesaid circumstances establishes a well-founded apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that he will not receive a fair and impartial trial before the present Court. Since it is a settled principle that justice must not only be done but must also appear to have been done, transfer of Sessions Trial No. 235/2021 to another competent Court is warranted in the interest of justice. 6
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/State opposes the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
10. The law relating to transfer of criminal cases is well settled. A transfer can be ordered only when there exists a reasonable and bona fide apprehension in the mind of a litigant that he would not receive a fair and impartial trial. Such apprehension must be based on cogent and substantial material and not on mere conjectures or dissatisfaction with interlocutory orders passed during the course of trial. It is equally settled that transfer cannot be granted as a matter of convenience or to circumvent procedural orders of the trial Court.
11. From the perusal of the order-sheets placed on record, it is evident that the learned trial Court has been proceeding with the matter in a structured manner, fixing specific dates for prosecution evidence, issuing summons repeatedly through the Superintendent of Police where service was not effected, and accommodating adjournments when justified. On 20.03.2025 and 26.04.2025, cross-examination of P.W.2 (Khilendra Kumar Verma) was permitted and adjourned on account of health issues of defence counsel. Thereafter, in compliance with the order passed by this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 1737/2025, opportunity for further 7 cross-examination was granted and duly availed on 16.06.2025. This, by itself, demonstrates that adequate opportunity was ultimately afforded to the defence.
12. The grievance regarding permission granted under Section 301(2) Cr.P.C. to the counsel for the victim also does not disclose any illegality. Mere participation of a victim's counsel, as statutorily permissible, cannot be construed as evidence of bias. Furthermore, the allegation that the trial Court has acted with undue haste is not borne out from the record. On the contrary, the order-sheets reveal repeated adjournments on account of non- service of summons, absence of witnesses and even absence of defence counsel. The Court has been balancing the requirement of expeditious disposal, particularly in view of directions issued by this Court in connected proceedings, with the right of the accused to fair opportunity.
13. As regards the alleged threats within the Court premises and non-
forwarding of the complaint, such grievance pertains to an administrative or factual aspect, for which appropriate remedy is available in accordance with law. The same, in absence of any material demonstrating partiality of the Presiding Officer, cannot form the sole basis for transfer. The contention relating to improper display of CCTV footage and sequencing of witnesses pertains to matters of appreciation of evidence and procedural management during trial. Such issues can appropriately be 8 addressed before the trial Court itself by filing suitable applications, and if necessary, be raised in appellate or revisional jurisdiction. Transfer of trial is not the remedy for every perceived procedural irregularity. It is also significant that out of 30 prosecution witnesses, 18 have already been examined and 4 have been given up. The trial is at an advanced stage and only official/police witnesses remain to be examined. At such a stage, ordering transfer would not only delay the proceedings but would also defeat the objective of expeditious trial.
14. Having considered the totality of circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners have failed to establish any real, reasonable and substantiated apprehension of bias. The material on record does not indicate that the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raipur, has acted in a manner so as to prejudice the accused or deny them a fair trial. The grounds urged are either procedural in nature or relate to interlocutory orders, which cannot justify transfer under Section 447 BNSS.
15. Accordingly, the Transfer Petition stands dismissed. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil