1 Appln.: 206 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.206 OF 2011 Abdulla Abdul Shakoor Ghansar .... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent Mr. R.N. Mishra i/by Parag Ubharey Advocate for applicant. Mrs. U.V. Kezriwal, APP for State. Mr. P.N. Birajdar, P.I., Mhasla Police Station, Raigad present. Coram : Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Date : 3rd March, 2011 P.C. 1. This application is filed under Section 407 Code of Criminal Procedure for transfer of Sessions Case No.23 of 2010 for the offence punishable under Section 302 Code of Criminal Procedure, from the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mangaon, District Raigad to any other court of competent jurisdiction in Raigad Sessions Division. The applicant is the accused in the case. As per the application, till date, the prosecution has examined 14 witnesses. The learned APP states that only one witness of the prosecution now remains to be examined. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant states that two of the utterances of the learned Additional Sessions Judge has created an apprehension in 2 Appln.: 206 of 2011 the mind of the applicant of getting justice from the court. The first utterance was made in the open court after completion of the evidence of PW-11, Investigating officer. Second is the observation made in the order passed on the application for bail filed by the applicant. 3. It is the prosecution case that the applicant was the last person who had spoken to the deceased over her mobile phone. During cross- examination of PW-11, he admitted that there was no certificate obtained by the police to show that the SIM Card No.9421945046 was in the name of deceased Noorjehan. He also admitted that the SIM card was not in the name of the accused, of which CDR record has been filed. The applicant contends that at the end of the evidence of PW-11, the learned Judge remarked as follows : “ I am informing both the Defence and Prosecution that I am going to invoke my powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and I am going to summon the personnel from the Mobile Phone Companies as I want to reach to the Accused“. Mr. Mishra, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the above remarks would show that the learned Judge has already decided to convict the applicant. As against this, he learned APP submits that it is not necessary to read anything more into these utterances beyond that the Judge merely wants to find out the truth in the matter or wants to reach the real accused. Mr. Mishra argues that had that been the case the learned Judge would have said so specifically. 4. The trial in the Sessions Case is almost at the last stage. There has not been any complaint regarding the conduct of the trial till now. On this factual background, the statement made by the learned Judge 3 Appln.: 206 of 2011 informing both the sides that he would be invoking powers of the court under Section 311 Code of Criminal Procedure can only mean that he wants to reach the truth in the case or the real accused in the case. The very purpose of the power under Section 311 Code of Criminal Procedure is to enable the court to come to the just decision of the case. It will not be correct to read anything beyond this into the remarks. 5. The other remark of the learned Judge found belatedly objectionable by the applicant made in the order on the application for bail reads as follows : “Admittedly, matter is listed for evidence and therefore, it is not safe to discuss the material collected by the police. If the detailed discussion is made that may give hint to the defence regarding the courts view”. Needless to say that considerations for deciding an application for bail are entirely different. The court only takes a prima facie view of the matter. It does not discuss in detail the material available with the police. Therefore, the comments of the leaned Judge in the order are required to be ignored, though the comments made were wholly unnecessary and could have been avoided. 6. In these circumstances, in my opinion, the apprehension felt by the applicant cannot be said to be reasonable apprehension for transfer of proceedings. Hence, the application is rejected. ( Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.)