JUDGMENT : M. Hidayatullah, J. 1. This is an appeal by special leave against an order of the High Court of Allahabad dated 15th April 1965 rejecting in limini an application for transfer of a criminal case from the district of Bijnor. The appellant is being prosecuted for offences under Sections 376/511 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution charge against him is that he had attempted to commit rape on a small girl namad Kumari Saroj in his shop situated in Bijnor city at about 8 p.m. on April 28, 1964, when she had gone to purchase some silk yarn. Prior to this an application was made to get the case transferred to another State but on second thoughts transfer to another district is now claimed. The petition for transfer in the High Court was made on the ground that the case has started communal passions in Bijnor and there was danger to the life of appellant and that no lawyer of any standing was willing to take up the case since Shri Nagendra Chandra, father of Kumari Saroj is a clerk of one of the leading Advocates of Bijnor. In support of his petition the appellant pleaded that even the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) Bijnor and the Sessions Judge, while granting bail imposed a condition that he should not visit Bijnor town or any other place within a radius of five miles of the limits of Bijnor Municipality except to attend the court on the dates fixed for trial. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that in this condition there is an admission of his complaint of the communal situation in Bijnor city. 3. Mr. O. P. Rana contended that the petition for transfer deserved to be dismissed and submitted that the order of the Sessions Judge granting bail on the above terms was merely a repetition of the order originally made by the Additional District Magistrate and the situation during this time had considerably altered. He further submitted that there was no allegation in the case that the appellant would not get a fair trial at the hands of the Sessions Judge in Bijnor. Learned Counsel for the appellant frankly conceded that his client had not grounded the petition on any complaint against the judiciary as such. He contented that his client was more concerned with his own safety than anything else. Learned Counsel for the appellant frankly conceded that his client had not grounded the petition on any complaint against the judiciary as such. He contented that his client was more concerned with his own safety than anything else. He relied strongly upon the apprehensions of both the Additional District Magistrate and the Sessions Judge which indicated that the apprehensions might not be unfounded. 4. There is some truth in the allegation of danger. In these circumstances it would be nothing less than torture for an accused to conduct his case with the fear for his own safety hanging at the back of his mind. No harm would have been done if the case had been transferred to the neighbouring district. What the High Court thought is not clear because the High Court did not pass a speaking order. It dismissed the petition summarily. No detailed statement has been filed before us controverting the stand taken except the denial that such an apprehension does not really exist. We think that in the special circumstances of this case we should act upon the affidavit of the appellant and give him a place for trial where he can move freely and where he can defend himself without having to worry about his own safety. Both sides agreed that if transfer is ordered the case may be entrusted to the Court of Session at Moradabad which is not very far from Bijnor and we think that the ends of justice would be amply met if we order the transfer of the case to Moradabad district. We order accordingly. The Sessions Judge, Moradabad shall either deal with this case himself or make it over to a competent Sessions Judge under him.