ORDER 1. Since all the petitions arise out of the same case, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order at the admission stage itself. 2. In this case, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 11th July 2011 by which the learned Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, Ara has withdrawn Sessions Trial No.106 of 2010 from the file of learned A.D.J.I, Bhojpur, Ara and transferred the same to the file of learned A.D.J.III, Bhojpur, Ara. 3. This case has a checkered history, as the case is arising out of U.D.Case No. 42 of 2007 which was registered as the dead body of the victim girl, namely, Sonu was found lying near the Railway track at Karisath Railway Station and later on, on the basis of complaint made by Birendra Prasad Singh, father of deceased Sonu Kumari, a properly constituted Police Case, vide G.R.P.,Ara P.S.Case No. 73 of 2007 dated 6th December 2007 was registered for the offences under Sections 302, 201 and 120B IPC in which the allegation was made that it was not a case of natural death, rather his daughter, Sonu Kumari aged 20 years had been killed. 4. According to the FIR, it has been alleged that the daughter of the informant had affair with one Rajesh Bharadwaj (petitioner of this case) and they used to talk regularly for hours on phone and mobile. In the night of 30th November 2007 at 10:00 P.M., aforesaid Rajesh Bharadwaj took the informant?s daughter Sonu on his motor-cycle from his (informant?s) Patna residence situated in Mohalla Kankerbagh which was also witnessed by his domestic servants, namely, Baiju and Dharmendra. In course of enquiry, the informant learnt from his brother in-law Dr. Sanjiv that Sonu had given a call to her Mausi, Dr. Anita at 12:30 A.M. in the night between 30th November 2007/1st December 2007 to inform her that she was going out with Rajesh and would return after the marriage. On 1st December 2007 at 7:00 A.M., the G.R.P.,Ara informed the informant that the dead body of his daughter Sonu was lying on the Railway track. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, G.R.P., Ara P.S. Case No. 73 of 2007 was instituted. 5. In the FIR, the petitioner was made an accused along with others. On 1st December 2007 at 7:00 A.M., the G.R.P.,Ara informed the informant that the dead body of his daughter Sonu was lying on the Railway track. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, G.R.P., Ara P.S. Case No. 73 of 2007 was instituted. 5. In the FIR, the petitioner was made an accused along with others. It appears from the record that as the petitioner did not surrender, non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued against him and later on processes under Sections 82 & 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter, in short, referred to as the „Code?) were issued. Later on, an application for anticipatory bail vide A.B.P.No. 53 of 2008 was filed in the court of Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, Ara which was rejected. The matter traveled to this Court in Cr. Misc.No. 15842 of 2008 and the same was rejected. The petitioner thereafter moved anticipatory bail application before the Hon?ble Supreme Court and the same was also rejected. As the father of the petitioner had fallen ill, looking to the facts of the case, petitioner was granted anticipatory bail provisionally for a period of eight months. While the petitioner was on provisional bail, the informant filed an application before the Hon?ble Supreme Court, vide SLP(Crl.) No. 1529 of 2010 for cancellation of his bail. When the case could be taken up before the Hon?ble Supreme Court, petitioner surrendered which rendered the said petition before the Hon?ble Supreme Court infructuous. 6. The mother of petitioner filed a criminal writ before this Court, vide Cr.W.J.C.No. 394 of 2009 for transferring the investigation from Police to any other investigating agency, which was disposed of by order dated 5th April 2010 against which the informant went to the Supreme Court in S.L.P.(Crl.)No. 4979 of 2010. The Hon?ble Supreme Court interfered with the order of this Court and directed the Sessions Judge, Bhojpur to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 7. An application was filed by the father of the petitioner, vide Cr.Misc.No. 33158 of 2008 making a prayer to transfer the case from the court of the Railway Magistrate, Ara to the Patna Sessions Division which was dismissed by the order dated 6th April 2009 passed by this Court. 7. An application was filed by the father of the petitioner, vide Cr.Misc.No. 33158 of 2008 making a prayer to transfer the case from the court of the Railway Magistrate, Ara to the Patna Sessions Division which was dismissed by the order dated 6th April 2009 passed by this Court. Another application was filed by the mother of the petitioner, vide Cr.W.J.C.No. 352 of 2008 for restraining the Police authority from executing process and the same was disposed of vide order dated 6th April 2009. The investigating agency filed charge-sheet No.23 of 2009 dated 18th June 2009 for the offences under Sections 302, 201 and 120B IPC. Thereafter a petition was filed by the father of the petitioner before the learned Railway Judicial Magistrate, Ara on 25th June 2009 stating therein that he did not have faith on the court of Railway Judicial Magistrate and he will move a petition for transfer of the case from that court to another Magistrate. The learned court below rejected the application filed by the father of the petitioner and, accordingly, took cognizance of the case for the offences under Sections 302, 201 and 120B IPC. 8. The petitioner challenged the order of cognizance vide Cr.Misc.No. 25538 of 2009 before this Court. While the matter was pending before this Court, an Interlocutory application, bearing I.A.No.1435 of 2011 was filed praying for amendment in the quashing application and also challenged the order dated 26th May 2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bhojpur, Ara in Sessions Trial No. 106 of 2010. In that I.A., as the trial had commenced, petitioner made a prayer for calling for certain documents which were (a) The immigration records for the year 2006-07, (b) Memo No. 963 C.R dated 20th February 2007 which is the show cause issued by the S.P., Rail, Patna to the Officer In-charge of the case and the reply of the Officer in-charge as contained in Memo No. 692 of 2007 and (c) The investigation conducted in U.D.Case No. 42 of 2007. This Court vide order dated 7th July 2011, passed the order in the following terms: “The trial court shall get a report from the Immigration Office and the cost of courier for sending the photo copy of Passport to Immigration Office shall be borne by the petitioner. This Court vide order dated 7th July 2011, passed the order in the following terms: “The trial court shall get a report from the Immigration Office and the cost of courier for sending the photo copy of Passport to Immigration Office shall be borne by the petitioner. The trial court would also call the letter issued under Memo No. 692 of 2007 by a Special Messenger. As for U.D. Case No. 42 of 2007 is concerned, the trial court must verify with the records available and an appropriate order accordingly. Obviously, if the U.D.Case No. 42 of 2007 has merged with the records, there would be no difficulty in referring the U.D.Case, however, if the records are lying with the S.D.O., Ara, the trial court should call for the records, if required, in order to meet out full justice between the parties.” Accordingly, the I.A. was allowed to the aforesaid extent. 9. It will be relevant to mention that at the commitment stage also, an application was filed by the mother of petitioner, vide Cr.W.J.C.No. 394 of 2009 seeking an order for investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation as the petitioner was to surrender in the court below after the expiry of eight months as per the order of this Court granting provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The court below refused to stay the proceeding and vide order dated 25th March 2010, the case was committed to the court of Sessions. After the commitment, the case was transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge-II Bhojpur,Ara (Sri P.N.Sharma) for conducting the trial. 10. An application was filed before the learned Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, Ara for transferring the case from the court of A.D.J.II to any other court on the allegation that father of the petitioner had proximity with the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Ara. The allegation made against the A.D.J.-II, Ara was vehemently opposed, but he had said that he had no objection in transferring the case from his file to any other court and the learned Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, Ara, without going into the merits of the case, recalled the case from his file and thereafter the case was taken up by the Sessions Judge himself and ultimately charges were framed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, Ara on 1st December 2010 and thereafter the trial proceeded for examination of prosecution witnesses. The Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, Ara transferred the case to the file of Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ara (Sri A.K. Srivastava) for trial and disposal and the matter moved smoothly. 11. As Sri A.K. Srivastava, Additional Sessions Judge, Ara was transferred to Motihari Judgeship, the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ara fell vacant and Sri P.N.Sharma, being the senior most Additional Sessions Judge at the station was redesignated from Additional Sessions Judge-II to Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ara and in this way Sri Sharma being the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ara was required to conduct the trial of the present case. An application was filed by the informant and the learned A.P.P. for transfer of Sessions Trial No. 106 of 2010 from the court of Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ara to any other court. The ground that was taken was that earlier Sri A.K. Srivastava being the Additional Sessions Judge-I was conducting the trial but he has been transferred to Motihari and Sri P.N.Sharma has been redesignated as Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bhojpur, Ara from whom earlier file of this trial was withdrawn. A report was called for from Sri Sharma in which he also expressed his desire that case be taken away from his file and it be transferred to any other court. Accordingly, the file of the present case was transferred to Additional Sessions Judge-III, Bhojpur, Ara for early disposal and this very order is under challenge before this Court in the present case. 12. In order to deciding the validity of transfer order, it is necessary to make analysis of facts. After the transfer of Sri A.K.Srivastava, who was In-charge of Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ara, Sri P.N.Sharma was redesignated as Additional Sessions Judge, Ara. As the case was pending in the court of A.D.J.I, Ara an application dated 24th June 2011 was filed before the Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, Ara, vide Misc.No. 27 of 2011 by A.P.P. The petitioner filed a reply dated 4th July 2011 raising all the points relating to defects in the petition. The petitioner in his objection has raised a point that the petition of transfer is not maintainable as the same is not accompanied by an affidavit as provided under Section 408 of the Code. In objection, the petitioner has also assailed the wild and baseless allegations made in the petition and made a prayer to reject the transfer petition. The petitioner in his objection has raised a point that the petition of transfer is not maintainable as the same is not accompanied by an affidavit as provided under Section 408 of the Code. In objection, the petitioner has also assailed the wild and baseless allegations made in the petition and made a prayer to reject the transfer petition. It is clear from the record that the Sessions Judge, Bhojpur had called for a report from the 1st Additional Sessions Judge on the contents made in the transfer application filed by the learned A.P.P. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that when an objection with regard to filing of an affidavit was raised and order dated 4th July 2011 was passed by the Sessions Judge, then an affidavit was filed by the informant Birendra Prasad Singh. It has been submitted that the application was filed by the learned A.P.P. who was conducting the case on behalf of State and, as such, it was he who was required to file an affidavit, instead the affidavit was filed by Birendra Prasad Singh, informant and, as such, that would not cure the defect as the mandatory law requires that the person who files the transfer petition, must file an affidavit in its support. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order has been passed without any notice to the petitioner, as it was boundened duty of the Sessions Judge that before passing an order, petitioner should have been given notice and also he was required to be heard. He further submitted that earlier also such incident had take palace as the informant had filed an application before the Sessions Judge, vide Misc. Application No. 46 of 2010, making wild allegation against his father as well as against Sri P.N.Sharma who was in seisin with the case and made a prayer that the case be transferred to any other court. They are in habit of humiliating the Judicial Officer by making a wild and baseless allegation. That time though it was resisted by Sri P.N.Sharma, who was Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bhojpur, Ara at the relevant time, but graciously raised no objection to the transfer of the case to any other court. They are in habit of humiliating the Judicial Officer by making a wild and baseless allegation. That time though it was resisted by Sri P.N.Sharma, who was Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bhojpur, Ara at the relevant time, but graciously raised no objection to the transfer of the case to any other court. It will be pertinent to note that the petitioner did challenge the order dated 3rd November 2010 (Annexure-3 to this petition) and the trial proceeded for quite some time, without any hindrance. The petitioner has further stated that the informant is in habit of misleading the Court by making wrong submissions. In support of his contention, he submitted that in Cr.Misc.No. 14690 of 2010, which was disposed of vide order dated 24th November 2010, where he made a misleading statement that no transfer petition was filed on his behalf. 15. Learned counsel has contended that the basis for transfer of the case from the court of Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ara to the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Ara is without any basis and the ground mentioned in the transfer petition are frivolous and vexatious and contain false and fabricated allegations and as such, the learned Sessions Judge ought to have refused to transfer the case. He further submitted that though the petitioner had filed an objection but he was not given oral hearing which is in violation of the basic principles of natural justice. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has no faith on Additional Sessions Judge-III, Ara as he has filed an application in that court itself making following allegations against him: (i) On 4th August 2011, an application was filed by the accused persons praying for time to get his medical examination done for the purpose of renewal of his commercial pilot license which was due on 24th August 2011, but the court refused to grant time and his application remained pending which was not disposed of. (ii) Another grievance raised by the petitioner is that the petitioner wanted to challenge the order of transfer from the court of Additional Sessions Judge-I to Additional Sessions Judge-III, Bhojpur, Ara but he was refused to grant permissible time. (ii) Another grievance raised by the petitioner is that the petitioner wanted to challenge the order of transfer from the court of Additional Sessions Judge-I to Additional Sessions Judge-III, Bhojpur, Ara but he was refused to grant permissible time. (iii) Petitioner applied for the certified copy of the order to enable him to challenge the order before this Court but the record was not sent to the Copying Section by his Office and, as such, petitioner could not get the certified copy. (iv) It has further been contended that the court illegally closed the evidence of defence which caused prejudiced to him and at last it has been stated in the petition that the petitioner reasonably apprehends that the records of the case are being manipulated by the concerned person of his Office at the behest of the informant side which was signed by large number of Advocates. 17. At this juncture, it will be relevant to say that the petitioner has not made any allegation of personal biasness of the court concerned, rather the allegation has been made by and large against the Office and not granting the period of 21 days? time to obtain the order from this Court. It is also relevant to mention that the petitioner had also filed an application before the Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, Ara, vide .Misc. Case No. 65 of 2011. There similar type of allegation has been made with a prayer to transfer the case from the court of Additional Sessions Judge-III, Bhojpur, Ara to some other court for fair trial. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) (1999)9 SCC 67 (Vijay Pal v. State of Haryana) (ii) 1981 Cr.L.J 928 [Suresh Kumar v. State (Delhi High Court)]. (iii) 1981 Cr.L.J. 446 (State v. Rattan Chandra). And (iv) 1996 Cr.L.J 3998 (SC) : (1996)6 SCC 126 (Nirmal Singh v. State of Haryana). 18. Learned counsel for the informant resisted the argument of the petitioner making his submission that the order of transfer cannot be faulted and the learned Sessions Judge has rightly exercised his power in the interest of justice and for fair trial so much so that in the circumstances, Sri Sharma was himself not interested to hear the case and, as such, the question of natural justice does not arise. The case was not transferred because of application filed by the learned A.P.P. or the informant, rather the same was transferred due to the administrative reasons, as on the earlier occasion, this case was transferred from the file of Sri P.N. Sharma to the court of Sri A.K.Srivastava, Additional Sessions Judge-I, as he then was. It has further been submitted that the petitioner is in the habit of delaying the proceeding, as right from the very beginning when the case was under investigation, an application was filed to transfer the case, which was refused and when the court was to take cognizance, at that time also the petitioner had filed an application stating that he had no faith on the court concerned. At commitment stage also, the same trick was adopted to delay the proceeding. It has further been submitted that for quite a long period, the petitioner did not appear before the court even after non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued against him so much so that even after refusal of anticipatory bail he continued to evade the arrest. It was further contended that the petitioner compulsively appeared before the lower court and only after dismissal of SLP(Crl.) No. 4979 of 2010 (Cr. Appeal No.1526 of 2010) in which the Hon?ble Supreme Court has given direction to the Sessions Judge before whom the case was pending to proceed with the case in accordance with law. The informant submitted that this Court should not interfere with case as a matter of course rather in exceptional circumstance when it appears to this Court non-interference will lead to failure of justice and prejudice to the petitioner and relied on the judgment of reported in (1999) SCC (Cri) 1076 (Arun Shankar Shukla . State of U.P.). 19. In view of the submissions of the parties, it is to be decided whether the Sessions Court has rightly exercised his power to transfer the case from the court of Sri P.N.Sharma, Additional Sessions Judge-II and as to whether it is also required to transfer the case from the present Additional Sessions Judge-III to any other court. 20. 19. In view of the submissions of the parties, it is to be decided whether the Sessions Court has rightly exercised his power to transfer the case from the court of Sri P.N.Sharma, Additional Sessions Judge-II and as to whether it is also required to transfer the case from the present Additional Sessions Judge-III to any other court. 20. It is relevant to quote the following Sections of the Code: Section 407:Power of High Court to transfer cases and appeals-(1) whenever it is made to appear to the High Court- (a) that a fair and impartial inquiry or trial cannot be had in any Criminal Court subordinate thereto, or (b) that some question of law of unusual difficulty is likely to arise; or (c) that an order under this section is required by any provision of this Code, or will tend to the general convenience of the parties or witnesses, or is expedient for the ends of justice, it may order- (i) that any offence be inquired into or tried by any Court not qualified under Sections 177 to 185 (both inclusive), but in other respects competent to inquire into or try such offence; (ii) that any particular case or appeal, or class of cases or appeals, be transferred from a Criminal Court subordinate to its authority to any other such Criminal Court of equal or superior jurisdiction; (iii) that any particular case be committed for trial to a Court of Session; or (v) that any particular case or appeal be transferred to and tried before itself. (2) 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: Provided that no application shall lie to the High Court for transferring a case from one Criminal Court to another Criminal Court in the same sessions division, unless an application for such transfer has been made to the Sessions judge and rejected by him. (3) Every application for an order under sub-section (1) shall be made by motion, which shall, except when the applicant is the Advocate-General of the State, be supported by affidavit or affirmation. (4) When such application is made by an accused person, the High Court may direct him to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for the payment of any compensation which the High Court may award under sub-section (7). (4) When such application is made by an accused person, the High Court may direct him to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for the payment of any compensation which the High Court may award under sub-section (7). (5) Every accused person making such application shall give to the Public Prosecutor notice in writing of the application, together with a copy of the grounds on which it is made; and no order shall be made on the merits of the application unless at least twenty-four hours have elapsed between the giving of such notice and the hearing of the application. (6) Where the application is for the transfer of a case or appeal from any subordinate Court, the High Court may, if it is satisfied that it is necessary so to do in the interests of justice, order that, pending the disposal of the application, the proceedings in the subordinate Court shall be stayed, on such terms as the High Court may think fit to impose: Provided that such stay shall not affect the subordinate Court?s power of remand under section 309. (7) Where an application for an order under sub-section (1) is dismissed, the High Court may, if it is of opinion that the application was frivolous or vexatious, order the applicant to pay by way of compensation to any person who has opposed the application such sum not exceeding one thousand rupees as it may consider proper in the circumstances of the case. (8) When the High Court orders under sub-section (1) that a case be transferred from any Court for trial before itself, it shall observe in such trial the same procedure which that Court would have observed if the case had not been so transferred. (9) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect any order of Government under section 197. 21. Section 408. Power of Sessions Judge to transfer cases and appeals.- (1) Whenever it is made to appear to a Sessions Judge that an order under this sub-section is expedient for the ends of justice, he may order that any particular case be transferred from one Criminal Court to another Criminal Court in his sessions division. (2) The Sessions Judge may act either on the report of the lower Court, or on the application of a party interested or on his own initiative. (2) The Sessions Judge may act either on the report of the lower Court, or on the application of a party interested or on his own initiative. (3) The provisions of sub-sections (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) and (9) of section 407 shall apply in relation to an application to the Sessions Judge for an order under sub-section (1) as they apply in relation to an application to the High Court for an order under sub-section (1) of section 407, except that sub-section (7) of that section shall so apply as if for the words “one thousand rupees” occurring therein, the words “two hundred and fifty rupees” were substituted. 22. Section 412. Reasons to be recorded.-A Sessions Judge or Magistrate making an order under section 408, section 409, section 410 or Section 411 shall record his reasons for making it. From the aforesaid Sections, the primary objection raised by the petitioner is that the transfer petition should be accompanied by an affidavit, the Sessions Judge before passing an order ought to have heard the petitioner and there should be a reason so much so a valid reason for transferring the case from the court of Additional Sessions Judge-I, i.e. Sri P.N.Sharma to the court of the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Bhojpur, Ara. 23. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on Vijay Pal?s case (supra) where the Hon?ble Supreme Court while dealing with the case of transfer under Section 407 of the Code held that there was no valid reason for the learned Judge to entertain that application for transfer at Gohna while Judge of High Court was in annual inspection of the court and pass the final order, even if he was otherwise entitled to entertain such an application under the rules framed by the High Court and allocation of the work by the Chief Justice of the High Court. The Court has held that the learned judge has failed to appreciate that in absence of any justifiable reason it was not proper and legal to exercise the power under Section 407 of the Code and transfer the sessions case. This case is not applicable in the facts of this case in hand, as in that case the judge was camping at Gohna in connection with the annual inspection of the court. This case is not applicable in the facts of this case in hand, as in that case the judge was camping at Gohna in connection with the annual inspection of the court. There Karam Singh, daughter Sushila and other persons appeared before him praying that the case be transferred to Chandigarh as the prosecution witnesses will not be able to depose in the case with full freedom. The Hon?ble Judge without going to the merit of the transfer petition, transferred the case without giving any opportunity of hearing to the other side. It was contended that the procedure adopted by the Court was completely irregular and unjust and the Hon?ble Court quashed the order of transfer. In the present case, the situation is quite different. Here admittedly the case was earlier withdrawn from the file of Sri P.N.Sharma and this time also the case was transferred from the file of Sri P.N.Sharma, as he was redesignated as Additional Sessions Judge-I on account of transfer of Sri A.K.Srivastava who was holding the post of Additional Sessions Judge-I at the relevant time so much so that before passing the order of transfer, the learned Sessions Judge has sought opinion from Sri P.N.Sharma who himself expressed desire that the case be transferred from his file. The fact of the case in hand and the facts of the case before the Hon?ble Supreme Court are quite different. In the present case one of the factors is relevant that the petitioner had himself filed an objection on the transfer petition, though the Sessions Judge did not deal with the same and only on administrative ground, the case was transferred and, as such, this case is not applicable to the case in hand. 24. Another judgment that has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is Suresh Kumar?s case (supra) on the proposition of law that the transfer petition was not accompanied by an affidavit and the reasons were not recorded. The fact of the present case is quit different. 24. Another judgment that has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is Suresh Kumar?s case (supra) on the proposition of law that the transfer petition was not accompanied by an affidavit and the reasons were not recorded. The fact of the present case is quit different. Here the reason of transfer was by and large an administrative reason and on that ground the case has been transferred from the court of Sri P.N.Sharma so much so that the petitioner has filed an application before the learned Sessions Judge to transfer the case from the court of Additional Sessions Judge-III to any other court making application about closing of the defence evidence not in proper movement of file and for that reason he could not get a certified copy of the order in time, not granting the proper period of time to obtain the stay order from this Court and lastly not allowing him to get renewal of his commercial pilot license. There is no personal allegation or biasness shown by the petitioner on the background of the fact that the petitioner right from the initiation of investigation has filed application of transfer not having faith on the court etc. and, as such, the ground shown for transfer from the court of Additional Sessions Judge-III cannot be said to have any germane in the facts and circumstances of this case and, as such, the case relied upon by the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 25. The petitioner has also relied on another judgment in the case of State v. Rattan Chandra (supra) on the point of not giving notice to him before passing he order. There is no dispute in the proposition but while deciding a case, the consideration of facts has to be examined as a judgment passed in a particular case may not be applicable to the facts of other case. The Hon?ble Supreme Court has always held that while deciding the applicability of case decided by court of law it has to be decided in the context of the facts and circumstances of each case. The relevant judgments in this connection are (i) 2009(3) LLJ 609 (Bank of India v. K.Mohandas) and (ii) AIR 1987 SC 1073 (Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujrat). The relevant judgments in this connection are (i) 2009(3) LLJ 609 (Bank of India v. K.Mohandas) and (ii) AIR 1987 SC 1073 (Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujrat). In the above cited case, the Sessions Judge had transferred the case from one court to another in a quite hasty manner. The court transferred the case without issuing notice to the State or calling the comments of the Magistrate concerned in respect to allegation made against him. But in the present case, the matter is otherwise. The Sessions Judge had asked the comments from Sri P.N.Sharma and only thereafter for administrative reason, the case has been transferred from there. 26. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on another judgment of Nirmal Singh?s case (supra) on the ground that the order of transfer was passed without giving notice to the accused or affording him any opportunity to oppose it. The fact of that case is also not applicable to the present case, as the case was transferred from Ambala to Chandigarh without any notice to the other side and there some of the accused persons had shown their difficulty to contest the case at Chandigarh for the reasons that they would have to engage another Lawyer and were required to pay the new fee. In this case, it is only a transfer from one court to another in the same Sessions Division of Bhojpur and the factual aspect of engaging another Lawyer does not arise in the present case so much so that the case was primarily transferred only on the reason that earlier on the allegation of the informant, the case was withdrawn from the file of Sri P.N.Sharma. This Court while exercising power under Section 482 of the Code has to keep in mind the basic principles of law that the Court should interfere with the court?s proceeding only on a valid ground. The inherent power has been conferred upon this Court to do ex debito justitiae in order to prevent the abuse of the process of the court and also to secure ends of justice. The court in Arun Shankar Shukla (supra) held that inherent power that has been conferred on the High Court is meant to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice. The court in Arun Shankar Shukla (supra) held that inherent power that has been conferred on the High Court is meant to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice. The aforesaid two expressions do not confer unlimited jurisdiction of the High Court and the High Court will interfere only for the ends of justice. It has further been held that the inherent powers are in the nature of extra ordinary power to be used sparingly for achieving the ends of justice and not otherwise. The nature of objection raised by the petitioner before the Sessions Judge it does not appear to have raised any personal biasness or mala fide nor this Court find any prejudice or inconvenience has been caused to the petitioner. 27. In view of the aforesaid facts and looking to the nature of dispute, in the present case, it cannot be said that the learned Sessions Judge has wrongly exercised the power in transferring the case in view of the fact that earlier the case was withdrawn from the file of Sri P.N.Sharma and it was transferred to the court of Sri A.K. Srivastava, who was Additional Sessions Judge-I but after some time Sri Srivastava was transferred to another Judgeship and Sri Sharma being the senior most Additional Sessions Judge was redesignated as Additional Sessions Judge-I. In that view of the matter, this Court finds that the Sessions Judge had no other choice but to get the case withdrawn from the file of Sri P.N.Sharma and to transfer the same. This Court would have interfered with transfer order, had there been failure of justice. 28. I do not find any merit in this case and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Cr.Misc.No. 41422 of 2011. In this case, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23rd May 2011 stating that the court below has wrongly rejected the prayer of the petitioner to issue summons to the witnesses for his defence. 29. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not serious for pressing this application. However, he submitted that he was required to summons the persons named in the petition and the court below has fallen in error in rejecting the application. It appears from the impugned order that the prosecution itself has produced affidavit of Santosh Shekhar, S.Chandra Shekhar, Rajesh Kumar, Cap. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not serious for pressing this application. However, he submitted that he was required to summons the persons named in the petition and the court below has fallen in error in rejecting the application. It appears from the impugned order that the prosecution itself has produced affidavit of Santosh Shekhar, S.Chandra Shekhar, Rajesh Kumar, Cap. Rajesh Bharadwaj and Devesh Prasad Singh and got the same marked as Ext-19 to Ext-19/E and it does not appear that the petitioner wanted to cross-examine the aforesaid persons. When the statement on oath has already come on record and the same has been marked as Ext-19 series, the court below has not committed any error of jurisdiction in refusing the summons them as defence witnesses. 30. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Cr.Misc.No. 41423 of 2011. 31. In this case, petitioner is challenging the order dated 15th November 2011 by which three applications filed on 29th October 2011 have been rejected. 32. It appears from the record that the petitioner has altogether filed three petitions. One is related to giving direction to the prosecution to produce the original copy of the Note Book of Sonu (deceased) the photo copy of which has been marked as exhibit-C. For the purposes of comparison of hand-writing of the letter dated 31st March 2003 with the admitted handwriting. Another petition was filed to send the Mobile Phone Set of the deceased marked as Material Ext-1 to the Forensic Science Laboratory for verification of the communication as the petitioner has stated that he had made numerous calls from his Mobile bearing SIM No. 9334155358 to the Mobile of Sonu having SIM No. 9304915589. After receiving the information that she fled away from her house but his calls were not picked up by her for approximately 1 ½ hours and during that period the petitioner had also sent SMS which was replied by her by giving missed call to the petitioner. After receiving the information that she fled away from her house but his calls were not picked up by her for approximately 1 ½ hours and during that period the petitioner had also sent SMS which was replied by her by giving missed call to the petitioner. It has been submitted that the Mobile print of record has been produced by the prosecution regarding missed calls, attempted calls, SMS correspondence which have deliberately been concealed and has claimed that if the said Mobile set has not been tampered, then these information would be available in the Memory Chip of Mobile set in the electronic form and the 3rd petition was filed to call for the records of U.D.Case No. 42 of 2007 passed in the Cr.Misc. No. 25538 of 2009 directed that if the U.D.Case records are lying with the Subs-Divisional Officer, Ara, the trial court should call for the records, if required, in order to meet the full justice between the parties. 33. It is better to first deal with the application relating to calling the records of U.D.Case No. 42 of 2007. The petitioner had earlier moved this Court vide Cr.Mis.No. 25538 of 2009 in which prayers has been made calling documents from appropriate authority are as follows: (a) The immigration records for the year 2006-07. (b) Memo No. 963 C.R dated 20th February 2007 which is the show cause issued by the S.P., Rail, Patna to the Officer In-charge of the case and the reply of the Officer in-charge as contained in Memo No. 692 of 2007; and (c) The investigation conducted in U.D.Case No. 42 of 2007. This Court vide order dated 7th July 2011, passed the order in the following terms: “As far as the records of the U.D.Case No. 42 of 2007 are concerned, it would appear that they have not been produced before the Trial Court or much less exhibited, although they are part and parcel of the instigation of this case. The trial court shall get a report from the Immigration Office and the cost of courier for sending the photo copy of Passport to Immigration Office shall be borne by the petitioner. The trial court would also call the letter issued under Memo No. 692 of 2007 by a Special Messenger. The trial court shall get a report from the Immigration Office and the cost of courier for sending the photo copy of Passport to Immigration Office shall be borne by the petitioner. The trial court would also call the letter issued under Memo No. 692 of 2007 by a Special Messenger. As for U.D. Case No. 42 of 2007 is concerned, the trial court must verify with the records available and an appropriate order accordingly. Obviously, if the U.D.Case No. 42 of 2007 has merged with the records, there would be no difficulty in referring the U.D.Case, however, if the records are lying with the S.D.O., Ara, the trial court should call for the records, if required, in order to meet out full justice between the parties.” 34. The court below while disposing of the application has held that the Superintendent of Police, Rail vide letter dated 3rd September 2011 has informed that Memo No. 962 of 2007 is not available in his office; whereas calling for records of U.D.Case, it has been recorded that the concerned record on the prayer of the petitioner has been marked Ext-A series and, as such, there is no necessity of calling for the documents again. 35. It is apparent that the court had called for Memo No. 692 of 2006 but the Superintendent of Police, Rail, Ara has informed that the same is not available. In that circumstance, the petitioner will be at liberty to take appropriate steps during the trial or during argument stage in accordance with law with regard to the effect of non-production of Memo No. 692 of 2007. 36. With regard to the other two applications relating to the calling for the original Note Book of Sonu (deceased) and sending the Mobile Set for forensic examination, the court has refused to consider only on the ground that the petitioner did not raise his grievance with regard to aforesaid matter in Cr.Misc.No. 25538 of 2009. The court below has committed a wrong in rejecting the aforesaid two petitions merely on the ground aforesaid. In stead of deciding the application on its merit, merely on the ground that no such prayer was made in he aforesaid Cr.Misc. application, the court below ought to have decided the case on merit by passing a reasoned order in the terms of Section 233(3) of the Code. 37. In stead of deciding the application on its merit, merely on the ground that no such prayer was made in he aforesaid Cr.Misc. application, the court below ought to have decided the case on merit by passing a reasoned order in the terms of Section 233(3) of the Code. 37. In this view of the matter, this portion of the order of the trial court is quashed and the court below is directed to decide the aforesaid two petitions on its merit, namely, (i) For calling for original Note Book of Sonu; and (ii) with regard to necessity of sending the Mobile Phone Set of Sonu for Forensic Examination. 38. Accordingly this petition is partly allowed. Cr.Misc.No. 41444 of 2011. 39. In this case, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22nd October 2011 by which the evidence of the defence has been closed and placed the case for argument on 29th October 2011 has recorded in the order that the petitioner had filed a Criminal Miscellaneous application against the order dated 11th July 2011 and had submitted Token No. 36844 of 2011 with regard to filing of the case. 40. In this case, as the matter was prolonging, the Hon?ble Supreme Court and this Court are always showing anxiety for early disposal of is case, as it appears in this situation, the court below passed the order closing the defence witness. 41. This Court is not required to deal with the matter elaborately but it appears from the record that the petitioner had challenged the order dated 11th July 2011 whereby the case was transferred from the court of Additional Sessions Judge-I to the court of Additional Sessions Judge-III, Bhojpur, Ara. Vide Cr.Misc.No. 37547 of 2011, which was pending in this court. Thereafter again the petitioner had challenged the order dated 26th May 2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ara whereby prayer for calling for certain documents was refused by the court below. As the petitioner was pressing hard for the case to be taken up but because of pendency of large number of case, this case could not be heard before the passing of the impugned order. 42. As the petitioner was pressing hard for the case to be taken up but because of pendency of large number of case, this case could not be heard before the passing of the impugned order. 42. In my view, it is a cannon of law that the prosecution as well as the accused must have a chance of fair trial as it is embodied in Article 21 of the Constitution of India and both sides should get an opportunity to place all their respective cards before the trial court so that neither party suffer any prejudice in the case. 43. In this view of the matter, the order dated 22nd October 2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Bhojpur, Ara in Sessions Trial No. 106 of 2010 is quashed and direction is given to the court below to give an opportunity to the accused for bringing all his defence witnesses but the accused-petitioner should not use this opportunity as a weapon with the purpose to delay the trial and he is directed to produce whatever defence witness he wants within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 44. Accordingly this petition is allowed with the observations made above. 45. Any opinion or observation recorded in the order shall remain confined to these cases alone and it will not have any effect on the merit of the case.