IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.10715 of 2008 Satyendra Yadav, son of Sri Suryadeo Yadav, resident of village- Lakhaur, P.S.- Ghoshi, District- Jehanabad. ……..Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar . 2. Jhulan Yadav, son of Late Dindayal Yadav, resident of village-Mira bigha, P.S.-Makhdumpur, District- Jehanabad. ……..Opposite Parties With Cr.Misc. No.29367 of 2009 Dinesh Yadav, son of Late Ram Sevak Yadav, resident of village-Pachrukhia, P.S.- Kako, District- Jehanabad. ……….Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar …..Opposite Party ----------- 10. 09.11.2011 Cr. Misc. No.10715/2008 and Cr. Misc. No.29367/2009 have been filed by the accused petitioners under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for transfer of S.T.No.37/2009/140/2009 arising out of Makhdumpur P.S. Case No.321/2007 from the Sessions Division, Jehanabad to any other Sessions Division i.e. Patna or Gaya or any other place on the ground that no lawyer of Jehanabad Bar Association is ready to appear on behalf of the accused petitioners. In support of their contention, a copy of the resolution of the Bar Association, Jehanabad has been filed (Annexure-3 of Cr. Misc. 2 No.10715/2008). It has also been submitted that at the time of anticipatory bail application, a petition was filed, but later on no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge and the case was dismissed as withdrawn. Later on, anticipatory bail was granted by a Bench of this Court and the anticipatory bail was allowed, but there was no lawyer of the Jehanabad Bar Association to file the bail bond etc. on behalf of the petitioners. For filing the bail bond, the petitioners had to engage the lawyer from Patna. Local lawyer was not ready to file the bail bonds etc. as there was resolution of the Bar Association, Jehanabad dated 8.02.2008 that the lawyers association has taken a decision that in the murder case of Dindayal Yadav, A.P.P., no advocate of the Association will appear and the petitionfor anticipatory bail will also be withdrawn. It has been stated in the rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioners to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party no.2 that the petitioner after grant of anticipatory bail, since no advocate of Jehanabad Bar Association was ready to do Pairvi on behalf of the 3 petitioners, the petitioners had no option but to engage the advocate of Patna Bar Association namely Vinay Sharma, Dilip Kumar and Sunil Kumar, who went to Jehanabad and any how completed the legal formalities for execution of bail bond of the petitioners, although there was severe protest made by the members of Jehanabad Bar Association. Now, the aforesaid advocates are not ready to do Pairvi in the present case having gone to Jehanabad and they are also charging heavy fee for doing Pairvi in the present case, which is beyond the reach of the petitioners. The counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State as well as on behalf of the informant-opposite party no.2. They have controverted the statement made by the petitioners. It has been submitted on behalf of the State that no lawyer has been demanded from the State or from the local administration by the petitioners. However Mr. Ramakant Sharma, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2, the informant has fairly submitted that the informant has no objection if the aforesaid case is transferred from the Sessions Division, Jehanabad to the Sessions Division at Patna as the 4 informant is living at Patna. It has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Maneka Sanjay Gandhi & ors. Vs. Miss Rani Jethmalani reported in 1979 SC 468 at paragraphs 2 that “Assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative of the dispensation of justice and the central criterion for the court to consider when a motion for transfer is made is not the hypersensitivity or relative convenience of a party or easy availability of legal services or like mini-grievances. Something more substantial, more compelling, more imperiling, from the point of view of public justice and its attendant environment, is necessitous if the court is to exercise its power of transfer. This is the cardinal principle although the circumstances may be myriad and vary from case to case. We have to test the petitioner’s ground on this touchstone bearing in mind the rule that normally the complainant has the right to choose any court having jurisdiction and the accused cannot dictate where the case against him should be tried. Even so, the process of justice should not harass the parties and from that angle the court may weigh the circumstances”. 5 Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, the S.T.No.37/2009/140/2009 arising out of Makhdumpur P.S. Case No.321/2007 is transferred from the Sessions Division, Jehanabad to Sessions Division, Patna. Let the records of aforesaid case be sent to the court of Sessions Judge, Patna, who will deal with the case himself or transfer to any other Additional Sessions Judge, Patna for the speedy trial. In the result, both these applications are allowed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)