Judgment 1. The relief sought in all these four applications is for transfer of the four Sessions Trials, i.e. Sessions Trial Nos. 630/ 2003, 17/2003, 18/2003 and 1221/2004 pending before the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. IV, Bhagalpur, to any other Sessions Division. The four applications were therefore heard together and are being disposed off by this common order. 2. Learned Counsels for the petitioners in support of the applications urged that a fair and proper trial delivering justice was not possible at Bhagalpur. The accused were common in all the four cases and their conduct during the trial has raised a serious question on the sanctity of the trial at Bhagalpur. The police cases out of which the present Sessions Trials arise were originally directed to be transferred from the jurisdiction of the Courts at Chapra to the District of Hazaribagh in the erstwhile un-divided Bihar. Apart from the police cases that gave rise to the present sessions trials, Masrakh PS Case No. 62 of 1995 giving rise to Sessions Trial No. 19 of 2003 was likewise transferred to Hazaribagh. These transfers were affected under Sec. 185 Cr. PC, on the recommendation of the District Magistrate, Chapra. After the bifurcation of the State of Bihar all the five sessions triate were transferred to the jurisdiction of the Court at Bhagalpur. It was urged that the accused were influencing the trial at Bhagalpur. Eye witnesses were not being allowed to depose. The Counsel for the informant was denied the permission to assist the Court. The matter has proceeded in haste and evidence has been closed. Witnesses were jostled in the Court premises. Applications under Section 311 Cr.P.C. by eyewitnesses have been rejected leading to applications before this Court. The conduct of the Presiding Officer of the Court was not above board. The earlier Public Prosecutor whose conduct was also not above board, after the orders of this Court in Cr. W.J.C. No. 717 of 2006 was replaced by a Public Prosecutor who was none else but the full brother of the Defence Counsel. Strong reliance was placed on the judgement and order of the Division Bench in Cr .W.J.C. No. 717 of 2006 in support of the present application to submit that the present trial be also transferred to Patna alongwith Sessions Trial no. 19 of 2003. 3. Strong reliance was placed on the judgement and order of the Division Bench in Cr .W.J.C. No. 717 of 2006 in support of the present application to submit that the present trial be also transferred to Patna alongwith Sessions Trial no. 19 of 2003. 3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the private opposite parties submitted that the judgement in Cr. W.J.C. No. 717 of 2006 came to be passed on its own facts and circumstances which had no application presently. The present applications have been prompted by the aforesaid judgement The evidence in the Sessions trials has been closed and only the pronouncement of the judgement remains. Relying on (2005)12 SCC 329 (Pal Singh & Anr. vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors.) it was submitted that any order for transfer at this stage will only prolong the trial to the harassment of the accused. The Presiding Officer has been changed. The third and Special Public Prosecutor appointed now was from Patna. No objections of interference with the witnesses or otherwise was filed by the petitioners before the Court below. 4. Learned APP opposing the transfer applications submitted that the observations in Cr. W.J.C. No. 717 of 2006 have no bearing on the facts of the present case. If the trials have to be transferred from Bhagalpur it should be sent to any third Sessions Division and not to Patna. The apprehension that the petitioners have at Bhagalpur can well survive at Patna also. 5. The accused in the present four Sessions Trials and Sessions Trial No. 19 of 2003, giving rise to Cr. W.J.C. No. 717 of 2006 are common. All the five Sessions Trials were transferred from Chapra to Hazaribagh for the very same reason and then to Bhagalpur. There is a similarity in the allegations in the present Sessions Trials with that in Sessions Trial No. 19 of 2003, with regard to interference with witnesses, debarring witnesses and jostling of witnesses even in the court room. There are however certain additional features in Sessions Trial no. 19 of 2003 which upon consideration in its entirety has been directed to be transferred from Bhagalpur to Patna by a Division Bench of this Court in Cr. W.J.C. No. 717 of 2006 by judgment and order dated 13.3.2007. The private opposite parties without demur have accepted the order. There are however certain additional features in Sessions Trial no. 19 of 2003 which upon consideration in its entirety has been directed to be transferred from Bhagalpur to Patna by a Division Bench of this Court in Cr. W.J.C. No. 717 of 2006 by judgment and order dated 13.3.2007. The private opposite parties without demur have accepted the order. Both sides have therefore relied heavily upon the judgement of this Court in the criminal writ application to support and oppose the present transfer applications. Presently, the evidence has been closed in three of the Sessions Trials, except for Sessions Trial No. 1221 of 2004, which is at the stage of evidence with several witnesses, having been examined. In Cr. Misc. No. 13965 of 2007, arising out of Sessions Trial No. 1221 of 2004 there is specific allegation of jostling of witnesses in the court room at paragraphs 20 and 21. The reply to the same by the private opposite parties, in their counter affidavit is evasive. 6. Sessions Trial No. 19 of 2003, giving rise to Cr. W.J.C. No. 717 of 2006, likewise fell for consideration by this Court when the prosecution evidence had been closed. Quite apparently no body had come to the High Court during the trial with any grievance. An application on behalf of the prosecution under Section 311 Cr. PC. for examination of a material witness came to be allowed. This led to serious interference with the witness and others, even inside the Court room, with the same Presiding Officer as also in the present trials remaining a mute spectator, when the conduct of the same Public prosecutor as in the present trials also was found wanting. 7. The present accused indulged in clashes in the court-room in an attempt to brow beat witnesses. The fact that the Presiding Officer took no action, and that the matter drew the attention of the Inspecting Judge on a newspaper report is an entirely different matter. The witnesses were manhandled and assaulted in the court-room itself with the Presiding Officer being a mute spectator. The Inspecting Judge in his report has noticed that witnesses were intimidated in the court- room. The court atmosphere was highly tensed and abnormal. Adequate security ought to have been provided to the witness to prevent deflection of justice. 8. The witnesses were manhandled and assaulted in the court-room itself with the Presiding Officer being a mute spectator. The Inspecting Judge in his report has noticed that witnesses were intimidated in the court- room. The court atmosphere was highly tensed and abnormal. Adequate security ought to have been provided to the witness to prevent deflection of justice. 8. In the aforesaid background, the Division Bench considered the objection of the private opposite parties that since a Magistrate under the orders of the Division Bench had recorded the deposition of the concerned witness, there was no surviving occasion for interference by the writ Court and hence no justification for an order of transfer. It was held that the court cannot shut its eyes to prevent serious miscarriage of justice. "The present trial was not held at Chapra, in departure from the normal, but was transferred to Hazaribagh and then to Bhagalpur in order to ensure that it should be held fairly. But the materials before the Court leave no room for doubt that the proceedings of the trial were violently interfered with and the trials sanctity had been badly abused." 9. The Division Bench noticed that the same Presiding Officer had turned a Nelson eye to what was happening in the court room, remained a silent spectator and did not even report the matter to the High Court. It, therefore, directed the report of the Inspecting Judge on the conduct of the Presiding Officer to be placed before the Standing Committee of the High Court. The conduct of the same Public Prosecutor was found severely wanting when directions were issued to appoint a Special P.P. to conduct the trial, taking "into account the way the trial was tried to be subverted in the past and would appoint as PP. an experienced lawyer of reputed integrity". Directions were given to the Bar Council to examine the role of the same Public Prosecutor as in the present trials and the defence counsel and take appropriate action. The Division Bench after noticing the positive stand of the Advocate General also concluded: "Coming now to the murder trial at Bhagalpur I find all the suggestions made by the Advocate General positive and fully acceptable. The Advocate General suggested the need to transfer the trial to another Court. The Division Bench after noticing the positive stand of the Advocate General also concluded: "Coming now to the murder trial at Bhagalpur I find all the suggestions made by the Advocate General positive and fully acceptable. The Advocate General suggested the need to transfer the trial to another Court. I feel that it would be better to transfer the trial altogether out of Bhagalpur for more reasons than one. The incident taking place in the Court on 3.11.2006 and the enquiry held by the Inspecting Judge in the matter would have undoubtedly left its shadow on the judgeship and it is possible that any other Court there might take a vengeful attitude causing undue prejudice to the accused. At the same time, the possibility of attempts to interfere with the trial proceedings in future also cannot be ruled out. It would be, therefore, better that the trial should be held at Patna, closure to this Court and the seat of the State Government. Moreover, Patna is at half the distance (or even less) from Chapra to Bhagalpur and for going to Bhagalpur one would normally pass through Patna. It would, therefore, be less inconvenient to all if the trial is held at Patna. In the aforesaid circumstances, the only proper course is to transfer the trial from Bhagalpur at Patna so that it may proceed smoothly and without delay." 10. The allegations are that one of the opposite parties was a sitting Member of Parliament belonging to the ruling party of the State, taking advantage of political clout. 11. Notwithstanding the indictment of the same Public Prosecutor, and directions to appoint an experienced lawyer with reputed integrity, the authorities concerned with impunity in the present cases after removal of the earlier Public prosecutor proceeded to appoint none other than the full blood brother of the defence counsel. It is trite law that justice must not only be done, but must appear to be done. It was only when this was pointed out by the petitioners in the present proceedings that the learned State Counsel sought an adjournment when the authorities to save face, appointed a regular practitioner before the Patna High Court as the Special Public Prosecutor to conduct the trial at Bhagalpur. The attempt to influence the trial at Bhagalpur clearly did not abate. The attempt to influence the trial at Bhagalpur clearly did not abate. In this background the Court cannot but help to notice the stand of the State in opposing the present application in view of the fairness on part of the Advocate General noticed in Cr. W.J.C. No. 717 of 2006. 12. Sec. 407 Cr. PC. provides for transfer of cases where fair and impartial enquiry or trial cannot be held in any court or it will tend to the general convenience of the parties or the witnesses, or is expedient for the ends of justice. 13. In 1966 SC 1418 (Gurucharan Das Chadda vs. State of Rajasthan), the Supreme Court held that transfer of a case while there was reasonable apprehension on the part of a party that justice will not be done is a valid ground. The court held that the petitioner was not required to demonstrate that justice will inevitably fail. Transfer can be ordered if the circumstances show from which it can be inferred that there is a reasonable apprehension in the circumstances. Justice must not only be done but should be seem to be done. To judge the reasonableness of the apprehension the set of mind of the persons who entertains the apprehension is no doubt relevant but is not all. The apprehension must not only be entertained but must be a reasonable apprehension. 14. In 1979 SC 468 (Mrs. Maneka Sanjay Gandhi & Ors. vs. Miss Rani Jethmalani) the Supreme Court observed as follows in paragraph 5: "A more serious ground which disturbs us in more ways than one is the alleged absence of congenial atmosphere for a fair and impartial trial. It is becoming a frequent phenomenon in our country that court proceedings are being disturbed by rude hoodlums and unruly crowds, jostling, jeering or cheering and disrupting the judicial hearing with menaces, noises and worse. This tendency of toughs and street roughs to violate the serenity of court is destructive of the course of justice and must surely be stamped out. Likewise, the safety of the person of an accused or complainant is an essential condition for participation in a trial and where that is put in peril by commotion, tumult or threat on account of pathological conditions prevalent in a particular venue, the request for a transfer may not be dismissed summarily. Likewise, the safety of the person of an accused or complainant is an essential condition for participation in a trial and where that is put in peril by commotion, tumult or threat on account of pathological conditions prevalent in a particular venue, the request for a transfer may not be dismissed summarily. It causes disquiet and concern to a court of justice if a person seeking justice is unable to appear, present ones case, bring ones witnesses or adduce evidence. Indeed, it is the duty of the court to assure propitious conditions which conduce to comparative tranquillity at the trial. Turbulent conditions putting the accuseds life in danger or creating chaos inside the court hall may jettison public justice. If this vice is peculiar to a particular place and is persistent the transfer of the case from that place may become necessary. Likewise, if there is general consternation or atmosphere of tension or raging masses of people in the entire region taking sides and polluting the climate, vitiating the necessary neutrality to hold a detached judicial trial, the situation may be said to have deteriorated to such an extent as to warrant transfer............" It was therefore held that the assurance of a fair trial is an imperative for dispensation of justice and the central criteria on a motion for transfer as distinct from hypersensitivity. There must be something substantial and compelling from the point of view of public justice and attendant environment. Situation may be myriad and vary from case to case. 15. In (2000)6 SCC 204 (Abdul Nazar Madani vs. State of Tamilnadu) it was held that justice has to be fair and impartial. If public confidence in the fairness of a trial would be seriously undermined any party can seek transfer of a case. No hard and fast rules can be laid down for consideration of a transfer application, which will depend on its own facts. The convenience of the parties does not necessarily mean the convenience of the petitioners alone who approached the Court. Convenience for the purposes of transfer means the convenience of the prosecution, other accused, if any, the witnesses and the larger interest of the society. 16. The convenience of the parties does not necessarily mean the convenience of the petitioners alone who approached the Court. Convenience for the purposes of transfer means the convenience of the prosecution, other accused, if any, the witnesses and the larger interest of the society. 16. In 2007(3) SCC 62 (Satish Jaggi vs. State pf Chatisgarh) the Court was considering the prayer for transfer in the background of reasonable apprehension of bias at the hands of the Presiding Officer in view of his brother being close to the father of one of the accused. Even though the Supreme Court rejected the plea of any bias on the part of the Presiding Judge held: "But nevertheless to ensure that justice is not only done, but also seem to be done and in the peculiar facts of the case we feel that it will be appropriate if the High Court transfers the case to some other Sessions Court in Raipur itself." 17. The nuances of law cannot be divorced from the realities of life. The absence of a specific incident spurring the transfer applications cannot gloss over the entirety of the situation during the trials at Bhagalpur raising serious apprehension in the mind of the petitioners that justice would be a casualty. That justice shall prevail is only reflected in these transfer applications emboldened by the changed circumstances-arising out of the directions of this Court in Cr. W.J.C. No. 717 of 2006. The applications cannot be thrown out as an afterthought spurred by the order of the Division Bench. 18. In conclusion, and also relying on and reiterating the observations of the Division Bench, this Court holds that it shall be in the interest of justice, the convenience of the parties, to prevent prejudice to the accused, that the present trials be also transferred to Patna. The fact that the Special Public Prosecutor now appointed is also a regular Practitioner at Patna will only help in expediting the trial. The accused shall be attending Sessions Trial No. 19 of 2003 at Patna, no inconvenience or prejudice shall be caused to them. This Court does not concur that the transfer of the Presiding Officer and the appointment of the 3rd Special Public Prosecutor was sufficient justification to reject these applications. 19. The accused shall be attending Sessions Trial No. 19 of 2003 at Patna, no inconvenience or prejudice shall be caused to them. This Court does not concur that the transfer of the Presiding Officer and the appointment of the 3rd Special Public Prosecutor was sufficient justification to reject these applications. 19. The records of the present trials are directed to be transferred to the same Court where Sessions Trial No. 19 of 2003 is pending. The present trials shall then proceed in accordance with law. 20. The applications are allowed.