Criminal case transfer requires objective apprehension of bias; mere inconvenience or isolated incidents do not justify shifting venue.

Transfer of criminal proceedings under Section 406 CrPC is an exceptional remedy and cannot be ordered on mere inconvenience, residence-related hardship, or a shorter alternative forum. A stray unrelated assault, where security arrangements and protective measures are in place, does not by itself justify transfer. A party seeking transfer must show a well-substantiated, objective apprehension that a fair and impartial trial will not be held; vague allegations, exemption disputes, or issuance of warrants are insufficient. On these principles, the transfer requests were declined and the proceedings were directed to continue at the original forum.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the criminal proceedings pending at Ghaziabad should be transferred to Delhi/New Delhi on the ground of inconvenience and distance; (ii) whether the alleged personal security risk arising from the assault on one of the petitioners justified transfer; (iii) whether the circumstances showed a reasonable apprehension that a fair and impartial trial would not be held at Ghaziabad.

Issue (i): Whether the criminal proceedings pending at Ghaziabad should be transferred to Delhi/New Delhi on the ground of inconvenience and distance.

Analysis: Transfer of a criminal case under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not to be granted on mere inconvenience. The place of residence of the accused, the alleged shorter distance to another forum, and the convenience of parties or witnesses do not by themselves displace the jurisdiction fixed by law. The power of transfer is to be used only in exceptional situations where justice would otherwise be affected.

Conclusion: The plea based on inconvenience and distance was rejected and transfer was not warranted.

Issue (ii): Whether the alleged personal security risk arising from the assault on one of the petitioners justified transfer.

Analysis: A stray assault by a mentally disturbed person, unrelated to the conduct of the trial, does not by itself establish that the forum is unsafe for a fair hearing. The existing security arrangements, the change of venue within the court complex, and the assurance of police protection were treated as sufficient safeguards. The order already made by the Magistrate restricting entry into the courtroom was also taken into account as a measure preserving safety and decorum.

Conclusion: The ground of personal security was held insufficient to justify transfer.

Issue (iii): Whether the circumstances showed a reasonable apprehension that a fair and impartial trial would not be held at Ghaziabad.

Analysis: A request for transfer must rest on a well-substantiated apprehension, not on vague or speculative allegations. The mere rejection of exemption applications, issuance of warrants, or general allegations of a pre-determined mind did not establish bias. The Court applied the settled principle that transfer under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is to be exercised sparingly and only where the interests of justice so demand.

Conclusion: No reasonable apprehension of bias or denial of a fair trial was made out.

Final Conclusion: The transfer petitions failed on all substantive grounds, and the proceedings were directed to continue at Ghaziabad.

Ratio Decidendi: A transfer of criminal proceedings under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be ordered only on a well-founded and objective apprehension that a fair and impartial trial will not be possible; mere inconvenience, speculative fear, or an isolated unrelated incident is insufficient.

---