IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 34 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 34 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 34 OF 2008 Smt. Vrushali Umakant Sonale .... Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra & ors...... Respondent. Mr. Prakash Naik for the applicant. mr. S.V.Marwadi for Responden no.2. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED; 15TH FEBRUARY, 2008 DATED; 15TH FEBRUARY, 2008 DATED; 15TH FEBRUARY, 2008 P.C.; P.C.; P.C.; 1. The applicant is the wife of deceased, who is allegedly murdered by the accused. An offence under section 302 read with 34 of IPC and 25 of the Arms Act came to be registered. The judge who is presently dealing with the matter is the 2nd Ad-hoc Addl.Sessions Judge, Palghar. This very judge had considered the application moved for bail by the accused and granted bail by his order dated 25-5-2007. The present applicant had carried the matter to this court with a view to seek cancellation of the bail granted to the accused. This court after taking into consideration the fact that the charge-sheet was already filed, directed the respondent nos. 2 to 5 viz. the accused to surrender before the Sessions Court on 11-12-2007 and apply for regular bail. The respondents surrendered themselves and have applied for regular bail. The applicant moved an application seeking transfer of the case from the file of 2nd Ad-hoc Addl.Sessions Judge on the ground that earlier order passed by him granting bail to the accused reveals bias and hence it was contended before the Sessions judge, Thane to transfer the case. The Sessions Judge has examined the order passed by the court granting bail to the accused and he did not find anything obviously wrong with the order so as to give rise for an apprehension of bias of the Presiding Officer and hence rejected the application. Just because on an earlier occasion, the Presiding Officer had granted bail, it cannot be a reason to object, for his consideration of the application for regular bail. There does not appear to be any cause for bias. The only averment which is made in the application and which was pressed into service before the Sessions judge was that the Presiding Officer had hurriedly passed order of granting bail. The said averment has been found to be untrue by the Sessions judge. The test of bias by now is well settled. The reasonable apprehension of bias ought to be of a right thinking person. I concur with the view taken by the Sessions judge that the applicant has failed to establish any reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the Presiding Officer, so as to warrant transfer of the case from his file. In the result, there being no merit in the application, the same is rejected. .....