V. D. GYANI, J, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a transfer petition u/s. 407 Cr. P. C. seeking transfer of Cr. Case No. 2011190 pending in the Court of C. J. M. Indore, to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Mandsaur. ( 2 ) IT is a prosecution u/s. 8/18 of the N. D. P. S. Act. The accusation against the petitioner is that on 1-5-1989 brown sugar in sizable quantity was recovered from a room of Meghdoot Hotel, Indore allegedly in occupation and possession of the petitioner. Similarly in continuation on 2-5-1989, 70 gms. of opium powder was recovered from the almirah in the petitioners shop at Mandsaur. It is said that the proprietor of Meghdoot Hotel has friendly relations with one Mohammed Shafi of Mandsaur who also own a hotel by name Sagar International at Indore. The petitioner is locked in civil litigation relating to property with this Modh. Shafi. It is also alleged that the 1. 0. of this case Shri Mangal and the said Shri Shafi are very close, to each other. The case is false and cooked up against the petitioner. In fact a report relating to fabrication of false case has also been lodged against Shri Mangal of Police Station, Mandsaur. ( 3 ) TRANSFER of the case is sought essentially on the ground that the petitioner bas risk to his life and limb at Indore; where he is required to attend the case. He can contest in a better manner and with sense of assurance of personal safety and security at Mandsaur. ( 4 ) GROUND of convenience of witnesses was also incidently referred to as some of the witnesses held from Mandsaur. It was urged that the case be tried at Mandsaur. ( 5 ) IT is a settled principle of law that normal course of things, as pointed out by the Supreme Court in Baljit v. State (A. I. R. 1982 S. C. 1558), should not have been lightly interfered with and the case should be allowed to be tried by the. Court which has territorial jurisdiction in the instant case at Indore. ( 6 ) CONSIDERING the question of convenience, the resultant convenience from Indore and other place, cannot be overlooked. Court which has territorial jurisdiction in the instant case at Indore. ( 6 ) CONSIDERING the question of convenience, the resultant convenience from Indore and other place, cannot be overlooked. Shri Saxena, also argued that a part of the case, an off-shoot, has in fact been taken place at Mandsaur; that would not take away the jurisdiction of the Indore Court. A search at Meghdoot Hotel at Indore yielded a sizable quantity of brown sugar and in continuation thereof the petitioner's business premises were also searched at Mandsaur yielding 70 gms. of opium powder recovered from a Almirah. Now on this basis alone the case cannot be transferred to Mandsaur. Really speaking the search and seizure at Mandsaur was merely in continuation of investigation which had commenced at Indore. Similarly, the mere fact that there are 2-3 witnesses regarding search, and seizure at Mandsaur, the case cannot be transferred on the ground of convenience of these witnesses. They can well be summoned to Indore and mere appearance in Indore Court by itself cannot be said to be either heardship or inconvenience to the witnesses. If it is a matter of insistence, as was sought to be suggested during the course of arguments, it is for the State to bear it. The petitioner is no where concerned with this aspect of the matter. Taking a large number of witnesses from Indore and other places to Mandsaur would entail heavy expenses than summoning a few one from Mandsaur to Indore. ( 7 ) NOW coming to the question of apprehension to life and limb, much stressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is not any and every apprehension that can be a ground for transfer of a case: It should be a reasonable apprehension. The Petitioner alleges that he has risk to his life and limb at Indore, because, as stated by the Petitioner, that Mohemmed Shafi, who has been described as his rival, owns a hotel in Indore. He is an influential person in league with the investigating officer of the case Shri Mangal. If Mohd. Shafi owns a hotel, the petitioner also owns one in, the city of Indore and if on that basis Mohd. Shafi is an influential person and if the ownership of a hotel makes him an influential person, the same may also be held good in the case of petitioner. The 1. 0. If Mohd. Shafi owns a hotel, the petitioner also owns one in, the city of Indore and if on that basis Mohd. Shafi is an influential person and if the ownership of a hotel makes him an influential person, the same may also be held good in the case of petitioner. The 1. 0. is in collusion with Mohd. Shafi, cannot be so readily inferred: Nor is there any such material on the basis of which such an inference can be safely drawn at this stage. If at all there is any such thing, it would be a matter of evidence and proof at the trial, but to accept the contention at this stage, would mean that the whole law enforcing agency has come to grinding halt. ( 8 ) WHILE it cannot be disputed that even an accused is entitled to protection which must be afforded to him. It is a concomitant of a fair trial. The accused must feel safe and secured at the local atmosphere. ( 9 ) BUT sense of insecurity, is not something which should be readily inferred to presumed. One, who complains that he is not safe and secured so the case is pending against him to be transferred to other place, must-first make out a case that the ionosphere is actually that the case needs transfer and secondly no protection is available to the petitioners seeking transfer of the case or that protection has been denied by the State. ( 10 ) IT is not the petitioners case that he sought protection from the State and it was denied to him, nor has he made it a case that the local atmosphere at Indore is so polluted that it holds a potential threat to his life and limb. ( 11 ) NO case, is made out for arriving at such a conclusion. The apprehension expressed by the petitioner, cannot be said to be reasonable one. ( 12 ) ASSUMING for the sake of argument that it is the petitioner, can avail of State protection, for which purpose he should approach to proper authorities, but without even approaching them, if he were to say that he would not be protected against the potential risk to his life is being uncharitable to the authorities. ( 12 ) ASSUMING for the sake of argument that it is the petitioner, can avail of State protection, for which purpose he should approach to proper authorities, but without even approaching them, if he were to say that he would not be protected against the potential risk to his life is being uncharitable to the authorities. It is open to the petitioner whenever he has to attend the courts at Indore, to approach the District authorities for providing him adquate protection at Indore. It is to be hoped that in case of such an approach, the law enforcing agency would not be wanting to give such protection to him at Indore; but for that the petitioner must approach the concerned authorities. ( 13 ) WITH this direction observation, this petition stands dismissed. Petition dismissed. .