1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3885 OF 2008 (For transfer) ALONGWITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.622 OF 2008 (For stay) IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3885 OF 2008 Pradeep Purushottam Pimparkhede ...... Applicant. V/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ....... Respondents. ------ Applicant appears in person. Mr. D.P. Adsule, APP for the State. ----- CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 9th January, 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard the applicant who appears in person and the learned APP for the State. 2. This is an application for transfer of the case which is pending before the Sessions Court, Mumbai. It is submitted that when the applicant was admitted in the hospital and was unable to attend the Court, the learned Sessions Judge informed his wife that, if, on the next date, applicant does not remain present, he will be produced before the Court by bringing him in police van. Applicant takes exception to the 2 observation made by the learned Sessions Judge. It is submitted that when the applicant had remained present on each and every date during the pendency of the case in the past four years, the said remark was unwarranted. It is submitted that the learned Judge, in the roznama, has observed that spondylosis was not the condition because of which the applicant could remain absent in court. Applicant submitted that the learned Sessions Judge could not have made those observations in the roznama. It is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge, after dismissing his discharge application, immediately framed charge against the applicant. It is, therefore, submitted that the applicant feels that he may not get justice before the said Sessions Court. 3. In my view, these grounds are not sufficient for the purpose of transferring the case to some other Court. It is no doubt true that roznama indicates that the applicant had remained absent only on one date on medical grounds and the Sessions Court ought not to have observed that the applicant would be brought in police van. So far as dismissal of discharge application is concerned, it is always open for the applicant to challenge the said order of rejection of his discharge application. Under these circumstances, therefore, in my view, no case is made out for transferring the case under section 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Application for transfer is accordingly rejected. 3 4. Since the Criminal Application No.3885 of 2008 for transfer is rejected, Criminal Application No. 622 of 2008 for stay does not survive and the same is also disposed of accordingly. (V.M. KANADE, J.)