Transfer of criminal cases under Section 406 CrPC upheld where objective facts showed apprehension of bias and unfair trial.

Section 406 CrPC was construed broadly: "party interested" was not limited to a formal party to the criminal proceeding, so a political opponent with a genuine concern in the administration of criminal justice had standing to seek transfer. The existence of parallel writ proceedings did not bar the request because they invoked distinct jurisdictions and sought different reliefs. On the facts, repeated witness recall, resiling from earlier testimony, lack of prosecutorial objection, failure to invoke Section 154 of the Evidence Act, and dispensation of the accused's personal appearance under Section 313 CrPC created an objective apprehension of bias and failure of justice. The criminal cases were transferred to another State to secure a fair and impartial trial.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the transfer petitions were maintainable at the instance of the petitioner under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and (ii) whether the circumstances disclosed a reasonable apprehension that the trial would not be fair and impartial so as to justify transfer of the criminal cases.

Issue (i): whether the transfer petitions were maintainable at the instance of the petitioner under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The expression "party interested" in Section 406(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was treated as of wide import. The Court held that the provision was not confined to a party to the criminal proceeding, and that the petitioner, as a political opponent with a genuine concern in the administration of criminal justice, fell within that expression. The existence of parallel writ proceedings in the High Court did not bar the transfer petitions, since the two proceedings were founded on distinct jurisdictions and prayed for different reliefs.

Conclusion: The petitions were maintainable and the objection to locus standi failed.

Issue (ii): whether the circumstances disclosed a reasonable apprehension that the trial would not be fair and impartial so as to justify transfer of the criminal cases.

Analysis: The Court applied the settled principle that a case may be transferred when circumstances create a reasonable apprehension that justice will not be done, and that the central concern is the assurance of a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. On the facts, the recall of numerous witnesses, repeated resiling from earlier testimony, the absence of objection by the prosecution, the failure to invoke Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the dispensation of the accused's personal appearance under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, together created a serious concern that the process of justice was being undermined and public confidence in the trial was eroded.

Conclusion: The apprehension of bias and likelihood of failure of justice was held to be reasonable, warranting transfer of the cases.

Final Conclusion: The criminal cases were ordered to be transferred to another State so that the trial could proceed before an independent forum with appropriate prosecutorial arrangements and safeguards to secure a fair and impartial trial.

Ratio Decidendi: A criminal case is liable to be transferred under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 when the circumstances create a reasonable apprehension of bias or failure of justice and the fair-trial guarantee under Article 21 is imperilled; the apprehension must be judged objectively from the facts, not merely from subjective sensitivity.

---