This is a petition for transfer of the case being GR case No. 256 of 1978 pending in the Court of Additional District Magistrate, Aizawl. The petitioner who belongs to a battalion of CRPF stationed at Aizawl was driving a vehicle of the CRPF along Silchar-Aizawl Road amidst a convoy of CRPF vehicles in the morning of 12.6.78. As he drove the vehicle near a village called Siphir, the vehicle met with an accident as a result of which a cyclist got severely injured and after being hospitalized he succumbed to the injuries. A police case was started and the accused was arrested and produced before the Additional District Magistrate, Aizawl. He was enlarged cm bail afterwards. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused for offences under section 279 and 304A I.P.C. After enquiry the learned Magistrate charged the accused peti­tioner under those sections of the I.P.C. This petition under section 407 Cr. P.C. has been preferred alleging the following circumstances. 2. The aforesaid incident was not known to the petitioner or the convoy party who drove past Siphir village without caus­ing any accident. But in course of driving the vehicle along with other CRPF vehicles, as the accused petitioner reached a place named Lungdai towards Silchar from Aizawl, all the vehicles stopped for the purpose of taking some light refreshment by the drivers and the CRPF personnel, when some civilian people reached there in another vehicle of the CRPF. These people were in an angry and excited mood and charged the convoy party with knocking down a cyclist who was a school student aged about 19 years. Those people further pointed out the vehicle which was being driven by the petitioner as the one which caused the accident. The angry mob forced the petitioner to drive his vehicle back towards Aizawl. The Officer-in-charge of the police outpost at Baibougkawn rushed to the spot and tried to pacify the people. Meanwhile the Commandant of the 52nd battalion of the CRPF arrived there and seeing the situ­ation the Commandant asked the accused petitioner to report to Aizawl Police Station where he reached along with those civi­lian people and the said officer-in-charge. He surrendered to the police there and was later enlarged on bail of Rs. 20,000/- . 3. Meanwhile the Commandant of the 52nd battalion of the CRPF arrived there and seeing the situ­ation the Commandant asked the accused petitioner to report to Aizawl Police Station where he reached along with those civi­lian people and the said officer-in-charge. He surrendered to the police there and was later enlarged on bail of Rs. 20,000/- . 3. It is the allegation of the petitioner that as a conse­quence of the alleged accident, the student community and some interested political parties made a common cause and got furious and excited and that they are "organizing public agitation threatening the life of the petitioner". A call was given to the public to assemble in the tennis ground near the court of Aizawl in order "to compel the trying Magistrate to give punishment to the petitioner according to their demand and these people are keeping their vigilant eye on the function­ing of the Court on the dates of hearing and also on the petitioner's whereabouts" The incident was published in a daily news paper (The High Lander) on 3.10.78 giving call to the student community to assemble in the tennis ground near the Court of the trying Magistrate at Aizawl and thus according to the petitioner the general public were being excited over the matter. On 6th October, 1978 another news item was published in the said daily with the head line "Agitation over Student's Death". The petitioner therefore apprehends that he would not get fair trial in the surcharged atmosphere and that he will not be able to give appropriate defence to himself and also that his life is in danger at Aizawl. He further states that according to his knowledge the life of his surety has been threatened where-for the surety is keeping underground. In the above premises the petitioner prays for transferring the case to any Court out­side Mizoram. 4. It is found that while the petitioner apprehends danger of his life at Aizawl where he has to remain present in connec­tion with the criminal case against him, he is also apprehend­ing that he might not get fair and impartial justice there in that court firstly, because he will not be able to take proper steps for hi s defence due to the surcharged atmosphere and secondly, because the Court might be influenced by the agitation of people said above. 5. 5. In the affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the Union Territory of Mizoram, it is submitted that "An angry and excited crowd of civilians had pointed out the vehicle driven by the petitioner as the one which collided with a cyclist." Also it has been admitted on behalf of the opposite party that the public in general were agitated on account of accident caused by the petitioner resulting in death of the cyclist and that the students held a meeting at the tennis ground. It is further admitted that the aforesaid daily paper flashed the news item on 3rd and 6th October, 1978. In the affidavit-in-opposition, however, it is denied that there are circumstances endangering the life of the petitioner or influencing impartiality of the trial Court. It is further stated that the Government of Mizoram is quite able to give effective protection to the petitioner and his witnesses. Of course there is no denial to the allegation of the petitioner that the life of his surety was threatened. 6. Mr. Chetia, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel pressed that in view of the circumstances revealed in the petition and the averments admitted by the opposite party, the case should be transferred for trial outside Mizoram. Mr. Bezbaruah, learned counsel for the opposite party argued that such a transfer would create precedence which would mar smooth functioning of Courts in Mizoram. He further pointed out that such transfer would entail admission of a situation in Mizoram which is not at all congenial on the point of law and order; but as a matter of fact the law and order situation in Mizoram is quite normal and there is no apprehension of the life of the petitioner or of his surety or of his witnesses being in danger in connection with the case. Mr. Bezbaruah further submitted that all the witnesses of the case are residing in Mizoram and that the Govt. will provide every protection to the safety of the petitioner and his witnesses. 7. But the accused petitioner being not a man of Mizoram (as alleged) and in view of the admitted public agitation over the incident, the case of the petitioner deserves due consideration. will provide every protection to the safety of the petitioner and his witnesses. 7. But the accused petitioner being not a man of Mizoram (as alleged) and in view of the admitted public agitation over the incident, the case of the petitioner deserves due consideration. Apart from the fact that the Court itself cannot be influenced by any agitation or public threat or biased in anyway, it remains to be said that due to other circumstances as alleged by the petitioner and partially admitted by the opposite party, the petitioner will certainly not feel free to take desired steps in Older to defend himself. The apprehension though it may not come true is based on some objective materials referred to above. I, therefore, find that for ends of justice but without admitting the averments that the Government of Mizoram will not be able to protect the accused and his witnesses in connection with the case and that law and other situation in Mizoram is not such as to enable smooth con­duct of the case and that the life of the petitioner and his witne­sses will be at stake. I find that in order to give a free mind to the accused petitioner to arrange for his defence, the case should be transferred to some court outside Mizoram. This, however, does not cause any reflection on the trial Court or on the law and order situation of Mizoram. This finding is made in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case and no doubt this order cannot establish any precedence for the future. 8. In the result, the petition is allowed. The case will be transferred for trial to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Silchar. The record will be transmitted immediately on receipt of this order to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Silchar who will take necessary steps for early disposal of the case. The accused will appear before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and take fresh bail. Copy of the order will be sent to the learned -Chief Judicial Magistrate, Silchar.