Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 269 (ALL)

Mathan Singh v. State of U. P.

2017-01-19

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2017
JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. 1. Heard Sri V.K. Maheshwari for the applicant. 2. The present application has been filed under Section 407 , Cr.P.C.for transferring S.T. No.87 of 2015(State vs. Mathan Singh and others) pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1,Baghpat, arising out of Case Crime No.343 of 2014, under Sections 302, 307, 323, 504, 324, 375, I.P.C., P.S. Chhaprauli, district Baghpat to any other court of competent jurisdiction in the district. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the transfer application it has been stated that on 9.4.2015 Mathan Singh, applicant moved an application for adjournment of the case for appointing an advocate and to give some date for hearing since he did not have any lawyer to represent him before the court and also mentioned that accused Devbrat alias Sanni was in jail. Learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the application but statement of witness Arvind alias Chhota was recorded in the absence of the counsel for the applicant. Even on tracking back to history in this case, an application was filed by the petitioner for hearing the arguments on charges framed which was also dismissed without arguments on 2.4.2015. Son of the applicant Satendra coaccused in this case is the complainant in Case Crime No.1174 of 2016 under Section 307 , I.P.C. against Devendra Singh complainant in the present case. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Baghpat while granting bail to Devendra Singh passed strictures against the applicant, which clearly shows biased mind of the trial court. The bail order dated 25.10.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Baghpat has been challenged by filing bail cancellation application (registered as Bail Cancellation Application No.919 of 2017) in this Court in which by order dated 9.12.2017 notice has been issued to opposite party-2. Thus, it is clear that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Baghpat is proceeding in a biased manner and prejudiced mind. In the circumstance, the application is liable to be allowed and the sessions trial pending before the court below is liable to be transferred. 4. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the applicant and gone though the bail order dated 25.10.2016 in which the arguments of the counsel for the applicant and the counsel for the complainant were noted in detail. 4. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the applicant and gone though the bail order dated 25.10.2016 in which the arguments of the counsel for the applicant and the counsel for the complainant were noted in detail. So far as finding of the court below while granting bail is concerned, the court below has mainly recorded the finding that injuries were simple in nature. Since previous prosecution between the parties is going and injuries were found simple in nature the bail has been granted. There is no stricture against any one has been passed. 5. So far as the summoning of on additional accused in exercise of power under Section 319 , Cr.P.C. is concerned, the summoning order was challenged by summoned person by filing an application under section 482, Cr.P.C. before this Court, which was dismissed by this Court and summoning order has been upheld. In any case summoning additional accused may not be a ground which will cause prejudice to the applicant. 6. At the last the counsel for the applicant submits hat the applicant may be given liberty to file a fresh application before the Sessions Judge for transferring the case. So far as granting liberty for moving a fresh application is concerned, under law filing of a fresh transfer application is not barred as such no liberty is required to be granted by this Court. 7. There is no ground for transferring the case. The application has no merit and it is dismissed.