IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. Criminal Transfer Application No. 13 of 2006 1. Kundi Lad S/o Masodi Lal, Principal in Government Inter college Savari Sain, District Chamoli 2. Shiv Lal S/o Masode Lal Assistant Teacher Junior High School Nail Sankari, P.S. Gopeshwar, District Chamoli …… Applicants. Vs. 1. State of Uttaranchal 2. Kuldeep Bartwal S/o Manwar Singh Bartwal, R/o Subhash Nagar Gopeshwar, P.S. Gopeshwar, District Chamoli … Respondents. Sri Pankaj Purohit, Advocate for the applicants. Sri R.P. Nautiyal, Advocate for respondent No.2. Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. The applicants, who are the accused in Sessions Trial No. 13 of 2006, State Vs. Kundi Lal and another U/S 307 I.P.C., pending in the Court of Sessions Judge, Chamoli, have moved this application under Section 407 of the Cr.P.C. for transfer of the case from the Court of Sessions Judge Chamoli to any other District. 2. The petitioners have taken the ground in the application that the respondent No.2, Sri Kuldeep Bartwal is an Additional D.G.C. (Criminal) in the District Chamoli. It has further been averred in the petition that the D.G.C. (Criminal) Chamoli Sri Santosh Kumar Dimari is also a witness in this case, therefore, on account of this fact that both the Lawyers are deeply involved in the case, the petitioners are not getting any lawyer in the District of their choice for their defence. This fact that the D.G.C. (Criminal) Chamoli, Sri Santosh Kumar Dimari is a witness in the case and Additional D.G.C.(Criminal) Sri Kuldeep Bartwal, the respondent No.2, is injured/informant in the case, has not been denied by the respondent No.2 in the counter affidavit. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in view of the fact that both the Government Counsel are deeply involved in the case, hence the petitioners are facing grave situation as they have not been able to engage any lawyer of their choice and there is a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioners that they will not get the fair justice. 4. Sri R.P. Nautiyal, Advocate, on the other hand has submitted that the petitioners have already engaged Lawyers of the District for their defence, therefore, this submission raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is meaningless that they are not getting the lawyer of their choice in the case. He has further submitted that the D.G.C.(Criminal) himself has requested the Government to engage some other Lawyer for conducting the case on behalf of prosecution. 5. Keeping in view the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. This fact cannot be ignored that there is a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioners that they will not get the fair justice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case reported in (2007) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 33 (Satish Jaggi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others), has held as follows:- “5.The law with regard to transfer of cases is well settled. This Court in Gurcharan Das Chadha v. State of Rajasthan held that a case is transferred if there is a reasonable apprehension on the part of a party to a case that justice will not be done. This Court said that a petitioner is not required to demonstrate that justice will inevitably fail. He is entitled to a transfer if he shows circumstances from which it can be inferred that he entertains an apprehension and that it is reasonable in the circumstances alleged. This Court further held that it is one of the principles of the administration of justice that justice should not only be done but it should be seen to be done. The Court has further to see whether the apprehension is reasonable or not. This Court also said that to judge the reasonableness of the apprehension, the state of mind of the person who entertains the apprehension is no doubt relevant but that is not all. The apprehension must not only be entertained, but must appear to the Court to be a reasonable apprehension.” 6- Keeping in view the verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as well as this fact that two senior Government Counsel are deeply involved in the case, there is a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioners for getting the fair justice at Chamoli. Therefore, under these circumstances, I think that it would be just and proper to transfer the Sessions Trial to the neighbouring District, i.e. Rudraprayag. 7- Accordingly, the Sessions Trial No. 13 of 2006, Sate Versus Kundi Lal and another, U/S 307 I.P.C., pending in the Court of Sessions Judge, Chamoli, is hereby transferred to the Court of Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag, who shall decide the Sessions Trial Expeditiously and without causing any unreasonable delay. It is further made clear that the petitioners shall surrender before the Court concerned, at Rudraprayag, on 16-04-2008 positively. It is also made clear that the Court shall not grant any adjournment to either side on any unreasonable ground. 8- With the aforesaid observations, the petition is finally disposed of. The interim stay order dated 22-08- 2006, stands vacated. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) Dated: 13-03-2008 ISB