IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 27TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Tr.P(Crl.).No. 92 of 2008() --------------------------- SC.1634/2005 of ADL.SUB COURT, THALASSERY CRMP.3677/2008 of DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.5: ---------------------------- A.P.CHANDRAN, S/O.KUNHAPPA, KALAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MELMURINGODI, PERAVOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- STATE S.H.O. DHARMADAM POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Tr.P.(Crl.).No. 92 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of November, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 380 and 413 I.P.C. He is the 5th accused in the crime. He prays that the case may be transferred from the Court of the Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Tellicherry to any other court of competent jurisdiction. His application for transfer before the Sessions Court stands dismissed. 2. The petitioner claims transfer. What are the grounds? First of all it is said that on a date when the petitioner was absent the learned Sessions Judge had issued a non-bailable warrant to procure his presence. Secondly it is contended that on the next date of posting when the petitioner appeared along with the sureties, bail was granted only on condition that the original title deeds must be produced by the sureties. Thirdly it is contended that when sureties applied for time to produce the original title Tr.P.(Crl.).No. 92 of 2008 2 deeds, the same was not permitted and the application was rejected. Finally it is contended that as the petitioner and the sureties went away from the Court a complaint was filed that the petitioner had escaped and absconded from the custody of the court. The complaint was forwarded to the police and a crime was registered. On this ground the petitioner apprehends that he may not get justice at the hands of the learned Judge if trial were conducted before that court. 3. The learned Sessions Judge considered these contentions and had not accepted the same. Having heard the learned counsel in detail, I am unable to find any reason to disagree with the learned Sessions Judge. The fact that the petitioner was absent on the day when non-bailable warrant was issued against him was not disputed. That exercise of discretion by the learned Judge cannot justify a prayer for transfer. 4. Similarly the fact that the learned Judge in a case where the accused on bail had once not appeared before him insisted that the sureties must produce their original title deeds when he was granted bail is also not a sufficient reason to justify a prayer for transfer. Tr.P.(Crl.).No. 92 of 2008 3 5. It is contended that the court is prosecuting the petitioner on an allegation of absconding from custody. There is no dispute that on the date when the petitioner surrendered before the learned Magistrate he went away without executing the bond. In these circumstances the learned Judge had reported that fact to the police for taking necessary action. That cannot also justify a prayer for transfer. 6. To sum up, I am not satisfied that the prayer for transfer is justified. 7. This petition is hence dismissed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm