ORDER : S VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking for the following reliefs:- i) Pass a writ of appropriate nature directing the learned LXXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, at Bengaluru (CCH-82) to furnish copies of the documents sought for in the Copy Application dated 28/04/2025 bearing, application No.51775/2025, Receipt No.11202/2025-26 [ANNEXURE-'A'); ii) Pass Writ of appropriate nature to set aside the order dated 29.04.2025 in Spl.C.No.2627/2024 by the learned LXXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, at Bengaluru (CCH-82), rejecting the prayer of petitioner for certified copies and proceeding further in the case [ANNEXURE-'G']; iii) Pass of Writ of appropriate nature directing the learned LXXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, at Bengaluru (CCH-82) to permit the son of the petitioner to engage the services of counsel of his choice and set aside the appointment of the Amicus Curie in Special Case No.2627/2024 [ANNEXURE-'G']; iv) Pass any other order that this Hon'ble Court deems fit in favour of the petitioner, in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 2. Petitioner is the mother of Prajwal Revanna - accused in Spl.CC.No.2627/2024 pending before the Court of LXXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Spl. Judge, Bengaluru City, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(k), 376(2)(n), 354(A), 354(B), 354(c), 506, 201 of IPC. 3. The grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that her son who is facing trial in a case wherein serious allegation of committing the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC is made against him, is being denied a fair trial and applications filed by the petitioner seeking certified copy of the order sheet of the Trial Court and also the video recording of the court proceedings has not been furnished to her. Petitioner has further alleged that the advocate appearing on behalf of her son in Spl.CC.No.2627/2024 was permitted to retire by the Trial Court on 23.04.2025, and thereafter, sufficient time is not given to her son to engage the services of an alternative advocate to represent him in Spl.CC.No.2627/2024, and on the other hand, the Trial Court has appointed Chief Legal Defence Counsel as Amicus Curiae to represent her son and even the said Counsel has not been granted sufficient time to look into the court records, and it is under these circumstance, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the right to fair trial guaranteed to an accused is being violated in the case on hand. Petitioner's son has not been provided sufficient time to engage the services of an advocate of his choice which would seriously prejudice his defence. The Trial Court has been hurrying with the matter on day to day basis and even the certified copies of the order sheet and digital records of the court proceedings is not issued. He submits that in the aforesaid circumstances, a petition was filed seeking transfer of the case to some other court and the said petition is also rejected. He submits that if some reasonable time is granted to petitioner's son to engage the services of an advocate, no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution. 5. Per contra, Sri Ravivarma Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that petitioner is a third party, and therefore, she cannot maintain the writ petition. Accused in the present case has made multiple attempts to stall the proceedings in the case and this is one such attempt. He has filed petitions before this Court at different stages and having failed to get any favourable orders, he has now made a new attempt without placing correct facts on record. He submits that the advocate appearing on behalf of the accused before the Trial Court in Spl.CC.No.2627/2024 is appearing in the other criminal case registered against the accused and he is also appearing in the other criminal petitions filed before this Court by the accused. He submits that the advocate appearing on behalf of the accused before the Trial Court in Spl.CC.No.2627/2024 is appearing in the other criminal case registered against the accused and he is also appearing in the other criminal petitions filed before this Court by the accused. Even after he was permitted to retire in Spl.CC.No.2627/2024 on 23.04.2025, he has made an application before the Registry seeking certified copy of the order sheet and other documents on behalf of the accused which would prima facie go to show that only to stall the proceedings before the Trial Court, he has adopted to the tactic of retiring in the case and a prayer is made by the accused that he needs further time to engage the services of an advocate. He submits that though Trial Court has granted time to the accused to appoint an advocate, he had failed, and therefore, the Trial Court has appointed Amicus Curiae on behalf of the accused. The case before the Trial Court is at the stage of recording the evidence of the victim who was earlier working in the house of the petitioner and the accused, as a maid. There is a separate case registered against the petitioner for kidnapping the victim lady, and therefore, chances of petitioner once again attempting to tamper with the material prosecution witnesses cannot be ruled out. He submits that even at this stage, it is open for the accused to engage an advocate on his behalf and make a request before the Trial Court to permit the said advocate to appear on his behalf. But such an attempt is deliberately not made. He submits that the case is being tried by a Special Court constituted for trying the criminal cases registered against MPs and MLAs and the said cases are required to be considered expeditiously and the trial in the cases has to be conducted on a day to day basis.Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. 6. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that challenge to the proceedings initiated against the accused who is the son of the petitioner is being made at every stage of the proceedings. 6. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that challenge to the proceedings initiated against the accused who is the son of the petitioner is being made at every stage of the proceedings. In the present case, considering the seriousness of allegations against an accused who was a Member of Parliament, a Special Investigation Team (SIT) was appointed to conduct the investigation and a challenge was also made with regard to the competence of the said SIT to investigate the matter and submit the final report in the present case. After investigation was conducted, charge sheet was filed against the petitioner for committing grave offences including the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. With a prayer to quash the entire proceedings against the accused on the ground that there is a flaw in the constitution of SIT and the filing of charge sheet by the SIT is bad in law, accused - Prajwal Revanna had approached this Court in W.P.No.10878/2025. Accused had thereafter filed an application seeking discharge and the said application was also dismissed on 03.04.2025 by the Trial Court, holding that there is sufficient material to frame charges against him, and thereafter, charges were framed and read over to the accused. The matter was thereafter posted for fixing the date of hearing and in view of the submissions made on behalf of the accused that his petition filed challenging the rejection of his discharge application was slated for hearing before the High Court, the matter was adjourned. Subsequently, on 19.04.2025, a request was made on behalf of the accused by his Counsel to grant him time to verify the documents/records including digital records in terms of the orders passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.206/2025. The Trial Court, thereafter, has appointed the System Officer of the Court to be the computer assistant in order to enable the accused and his advocate to inspect the records including the electronic/digital records, and thereafter, the date for trial was fixed and witness summons was issued. To the enable the accused to inspect the records, the Trial Court directed issuance of body warrant for producing the accused physically before the court for inspecting the records on 21.04.2025, and for the purpose of commencing the trial, the matter was directed to be listed on 23.04.2025. To the enable the accused to inspect the records, the Trial Court directed issuance of body warrant for producing the accused physically before the court for inspecting the records on 21.04.2025, and for the purpose of commencing the trial, the matter was directed to be listed on 23.04.2025. On 21.04.2025 and 22.04.2025, the accused was produced before the Trial Court under body warrant for the purpose of verifying the digital records and other documents. On 23.04.2025, the advocate appearing on behalf of the accused had made an application to transfer the case to some other court and the Trial Court which is a Special Court constituted for trying criminal cases registered against MPs and MLAs, placed the said application before the Prl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, and it appears that the learned Prl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, has subsequently rejected the said prayer made on behalf of the accused by his advocate. 7. From the order sheet dated 23.04.2025, it is found that the learned Counsel who was appearing on behalf of the accused before the Trial Court had also made a submission that the Trial Court should recuse itself from hearing the case, which was seriously opposed by the Spl. Public Prosecutor on the ground that an attempt to deter the court from conducting the trial is being made by the accused, only with an intention to delay the proceedings. The Trial Court has noted in detail in its order sheet dated 23.04.2025, the attempts made by and on behalf of the accused to delay the proceedings, which is self- explanatory. At this stage, a memo was filed by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused seeking permission to retire in the case and the said memo was accepted and the learned Advocate was permitted to retire and the court had appraised the accused about his right to free legal assistance. But on the request of the accused, matter was adjourned to 24.04.2025. On 24.04.2025, accused who was produced before the Trial Court, made an submission that he intends to engage the counsel of his choice and further requested for a day's time. But on the request of the accused, matter was adjourned to 24.04.2025. On 24.04.2025, accused who was produced before the Trial Court, made an submission that he intends to engage the counsel of his choice and further requested for a day's time. Considering the said request, the Trial Court in order to ensure that fair opportunity is given to the accused, adjourned the matter to 28.04.2025, and in the order sheet, it was noted that as a matter of abundant precaution, the Trial Court also had requested the District Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru, to provide legal assistance on the next date, if necessary. On 28.04.2025, the accused who was produced before the court, once again requested to adjourn the case on the premise that he intends to engage the counsel of his choice and on the said date, the Trial Court by a reasoned order rejected the request of the accused and appointed Smt. Jayashree.R.S., Chief Legal Defence Counsel as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the accused to assist the court. 8. From the aforesaid aspects of the matter, it is very clear that fair opportunity has been given to the accused to engage the services of an advocate of his choice, but it appears that a deliberate attempt is being made by the accused to delay the trial on one pretext or the other. 9. A grievance is made by the petitioner that copy applications filed by the advocate appearing on behalf of the accused before the Trial Court in Spl.CC.No.2627/2024 seeking certified copies of the order sheet dated 22.04.2025, 23.04.2025 and 25.04.2025 are not processed, and on the other hand, the said applications were rejected, but no document has been produced before this Court which shows the reason for rejection of the applications made on behalf of the accused seeking certified copy of the order sheets as mentioned herein above. Along with the present petition, online copy of the relevant order sheets of the Trial Court has been produced which would prima facie go to show that the order sheet of the Trial Court is periodically updated and made available to the parties. Along with the present petition, online copy of the relevant order sheets of the Trial Court has been produced which would prima facie go to show that the order sheet of the Trial Court is periodically updated and made available to the parties. Even if the certified copy of the order sheets are not furnished to the accused, he has got a remedy in law for obtaining the certified copies of the documents, and at this juncture since online order sheets are made available to the accused, no prejudice has been caused to the case of the accused in any manner. 10. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has made a serious allegation against the petitioner and also has stated that petitioner is a third party and she cannot maintain the petition. He has made a submission that petitioner is an accused in a criminal case registered for kidnapping the victim lady in the present case and this submission is not seriously disputed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 11. Petitioner who is an accused in a criminal case registered for kidnapping the victim in a rape case, is before this Court on behalf of the accused alleging that copy applications filed by her which is supported by third party affidavits have not been processed by the Trial Court and her son who is an accused in Spl.CC.No.2627/2024 before the Trial Court has been denied an opportunity to engage the services of an advocate of his choice which is causing prejudice to his case and an interim prayer is sought in the petition to stay the proceedings in Spl.CC.No.2627/2024 pending before the Trial Court. 12. The order sheet of the Trial Court dated 29.04.2025 wherein petitioner's application seeking certified copy of certain documents was rejected, would go to show that the accused who was present in court in person had made a submission that the application filed by his mother may be considered and the said prayer of the accused was rejected for the reason that there is no provision for filing application by a third party under Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice, and the accused himself has already submitted necessary application and the same shall be considered in accordance with law. It was further noted by the Trial Court that all the materials which is annexed along with the charge sheet are furnished to the accused and in addition to the same, order sheet of the Trial Court would go to show that necessary arrangements were also made by the Trial Court for the accused and his counsel to inspect the digital records. 13. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has failed to explain as to why the accused himself is not before this Court, and on the other hand, the petitioner who is an accused in a case registered against her for kidnapping the victim in Spl.CC.No.2627/2024 is before this Court. 14. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent has also brought to the notice of this Court that the learned Advocate Arun.G., who is appearing in the other criminal cases for the accused, has continued to appear for the accused in all the said cases except Spl.CC.No.2627/2024, and according to the learned Senior Counsel only to delay the trial, the learned Advocate has adopted the tactic of retiring from the present case. Considering the material on record, more so, the order sheet of the Trial, I find some force in the said contentions urged on behalf of the respondent and it prima facie appears that a deliberate attempt is being made by and on behalf of the accused to delay the trial in Spl.CC.No.2627/2024. 15. The Trial Court is a Special Court constituted in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY VS UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER - (2024) 1 SCC 185 , and in the said judgment, it is observed that designated court shall not adjourn the cases except for rare and compelling reasons, and in the present case, it is brought to the notice of this Court that this Court has directed the Trial Court to conduct trial on day today basis. 16. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent has fairly submitted that even at this juncture, it is always open for the accused to engage the services of an advocate of his choice and seek permission of the Trial Court to permit the said advocate to appear on his behalf and defend his case. 17. 16. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent has fairly submitted that even at this juncture, it is always open for the accused to engage the services of an advocate of his choice and seek permission of the Trial Court to permit the said advocate to appear on his behalf and defend his case. 17. Accused and his mother are not common people and the submission made on behalf of the petitioner and the accused that they are finding it difficult to engage the services of an advocate before the Trial Court cannot be appreciated, more so considering the fact that by engaging the services of advocates, this petition was filed before this Court after the Trial Court has appointed Amicus Curiae on behalf of the accused. On the guise of denial of fair trial if an attempt is made to stall the proceedings, such deliberate attempts needs to be dealt with iron hands and also needs to be deprecated. Under the circumstances, I do not find any merit in this petition.Accordingly, petition is dismissed.