bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. CRI. CRI. APPLICATION NO. 803 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 803 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 803 OF 2008 Yogesh Bhikaji Bacchav & ors. ... Applicants v/s The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr.Naveen Chomal for the applicants. Mr.Y.M.Nakhwa, A.P.P. for the respondent State. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 23RD APRIL, 2008 23RD APRIL, 2008 23RD APRIL, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. This application seeks transfer of Sessions Case No.105 of 2005 from the Court of Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions Judge-3, Nashik to any other competent Sessions Court in Nasik. 2. It is the case of the applicants who are accused before the Sessions Court that the learned Judge has displayed bias against the accused by offering a chair and a drink of water to the witness for the prosecution and also told the prosecutor in the open Court that he "should explain the things properly to the witness". The learned Judge, according to the applicants has also stated that if the witnesses continued answering in the 2 same fashion as they had earlier, it would not be possible for him to help them. 3. It is in these circumstances that the accused have sought transfer. Besides this, the accused have also stated that the learned Judge was an employee in the Court at Nashik at some point in time, alongwith two members of the family of the victim, due to which they have a reasonable apprehension that they would not get any justice before the Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions Judge-3, Nashik. 4. In my view, the aforesaid facts do not display bias by the Judge and such statements cannot create an apprehension in the minds of the accused that they would not get a fair trial before the learned Sessions Judge. It is also sought to be contended that the two employees who are presently working in the Nashik Court have also bragged that they are definitely going to succeed in the prosecution. These statements which presently appear to be unfounded cannot be used to have the proceedings transferred from the learned Judge to another Sessions Judge. 5. It is also contended that the evidence has not been recorded properly by the learned Sessions Judge and, 3 therefore, it would be necessary to transfer the case. There is nothing on record to indicate that questions asked in cross-examination were disallowed by the learned Judge, or that, statements which had not been made by the witnesses have been recorded as evidence. Assuming there are certain omissions in the deposition of the witnesses that would benefit the accused. It would be possible for the accused to point out these omissions or admissions before the Court at the stage of arguments, when it would be necessary for the learned Judge to appreciate the evidence on record. 6. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment in the case of Nilesh Jap Nilesh Jap Nilesh Jap Daru Daru Daru v/s State of Maharashtra, reported in 2004 ALL MR v/s State of Maharashtra, reported in 2004 ALL MR v/s State of Maharashtra, reported in 2004 ALL MR (Cri.) (Cri.) (Cri.) 2951, 2951, 2951, which is decided on the fact situation of that case. 7. In my view, there is therefore no need to transfer the case. 8. Writ petition rejected.