1. This motion for transfer of the criminal case titled State versus Muhammad Ayub Choudhary from the Court of the Additional Session Judge Baramulla to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Srinagar has been laid by the complainant and his daughter prosecutrix both prosecution witnesses. Do they have any right to lay such motion, reference to sub section 3 Section 526 of Code of Criminal Procedure becomes imperative which may be noticed: Section 526 High Court may transfer case or itself try it: "(3) The High Court may act either on the report of the lower Court or on the application of a party interested, or on its own initiative." 2. A plain reading of the provision entitles a part interested to seek transfer of the case. What interest petitioners herein have need to be appreciated in the light of the fact that the petitioner 2 a victim of the alleged commission of the crime happens to be the daughter of the petitioner 1 on whose information the police had swung into action, obviously, their interest is manifest, thus, a party interested, hence maintainable. 3. This brings me to the prayer seeking transfer of the case. Does it have any substance to succeed needs to be appreciated in the light of the fact that transfer of the case to Srinagar is sought on an apprehension of danger to life not in the Court room but while traveling by a bus from Sumbal to Baramulla. If that be so it is equally true of Srinagar being almost equidistant, obviously, trial of the case at Baramulla or Srinagar makes no difference for the petitioners. Nonetheless in view of peculiar circumstances of the case the SHO Sumbal shall provide protection to Miss Mehfooza Jan to help her to reach the Court at Baramulla and back home a well on the date or dates she may be required to cause appearance as a witness provided she approaches the SHO through her attorney a day before the scheduled date. 3. Now a word about the ground based on the apprehension of denial of impartial adjudication. How saddening it is that the Additional Sessions Judge Baramulla. Mr. Abdul Rashid Bhat II, a Judge of high integrity, industrious and honest, is sought to be divested of his jurisdiction on flimsy mentions. 3. Now a word about the ground based on the apprehension of denial of impartial adjudication. How saddening it is that the Additional Sessions Judge Baramulla. Mr. Abdul Rashid Bhat II, a Judge of high integrity, industrious and honest, is sought to be divested of his jurisdiction on flimsy mentions. If Judges of righteousness like him are allowed to be condemned no wonder that the judicial system may fail. Thus need to deprecate and discourage such practice. To achieve the objective strict adherence to law is called for which does not permit transfer of cases on bald assertions. Resultantly the petition fails. Dismissed along with CMP without any order as to costs, Order to be communicated by the Registry to the learned Additional Sessions Judge Baramulla in its entirety.