- (1.) Heard Sri Vivek Dhaka, Advocate, holding brief of Sri M.N.Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dwijendra Prasad, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A and perused the record.
(2.) This is an application under Section 407 Cr.P.C. filed by applicant seeking transfer of Criminal Case No.2507 of 2012, Case Crime No.364 of 2011, (State Vs. Sanjeev Gupta) under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, IPC, P.S. Sidhari, District Azamgarh, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh to any other Court of competent jurisdiction outside district Azamgarh on the ground that son of complainant Shamsher Singh is a practicing advocate and registered with Bar Association of Tehsil Phulpur, District Azamgarh and complainant's counsel has engaged advocate, who is also an office bearer of Bar Association i.e. President of Bar Association, Civil Court, Azamgarh, therefore, Presiding Officer of Court is performing duties in the influence of aforesaid advocates and applicant has no scope of getting justice and fair trial in the matter.
(3.) The averments, in this regard, contained in paras 28 to 32 of the affidavit read as under: "28. That, it is relevant to submit at this stage that the son of the complainant Shamsher Singh, namely Virendra Singh himself is a practicing Advocate and is registered with the Bar Association of Tehsil Phulpur, District Azamgarh and the learned counsel appearing for the complainant before the Court below is the President of the Bar Association of Civil Court, district Azamgarh; the complainant and his son Virendra Singh were only intending to some how get the applicant detained in custody for 24 hours inasmuch as the applicant is a Class-II government servant so as to adversely affect his service record. All out efforts were made at the end of the complainant, his son Virendra Singh and his learned counsel intending to achieve the aforesaid motive to some how get the applicant detained in jail inasmuch as the bail-application of the applicant was bound to be allowed by the Sessions Judge in the light of the fact that all other co-accused had already been enlarged on bail. 29.That, the complainant and his son Virendra Singh ultimately succeeded in their motive inasmuch as the counsel for the complainant (who is the President of the bar Association, Civil Court, District Azamgarh) along with a large number of other learned Advocates, barged into the Chamber of the learned Sessions Judge and started hurling slogans opposing the fact that the bail-application of the applicant had been transferred for consideration before the Court No. 3. 30.That, apart from the aforesaid, the complainant, his son Virendra Singh and his learned counsel also succeeded in pressurizing the learned District Government Counsel (Criminal) for some how getting the matter adjourned on 12.9.2013 as a result whereof eventually the bail-application of the applicant could not be considered on 12.9.2013 and the matter was fixed for next day i.e. 13.9.2013. A copy of the aforesaid order of the learned In-charge Sessions Judge, Azamgarh dated 12.9.2013 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 10. 31.That, even on 13.9.2013 deliberately and maliciously, only in order to some how get the period of detention of the applicant extended, a resolution was passed by the Bar Association, Civil Court, Azamgarh for abstaining from work on 13.9.2013 on the ground that Virendra Singh, Advocate (complainant's son) has received some threat from somewhere. The malafide behind passing of the said resolution is apparent on the face of record inasmuch as Shri Virendra Singh, Advocate is a practicing Advocate and is registered with the Bar Association of Tehsil Phulpur, District Azamgarh and on account of the threat having been extended to Virendra Singh, Advocate the bar Association of Tehsil Phulpur, District Azamgarh did not go on strike and, instead, the Bar Association of Civil Court, District Azamgarh called for strike. A copy of the aforesaid resolution dated 13.9.2013 is being annexed herewith as Annexure no.11. 32.That, on account of the said fact the bail application of the applicant could not be considered on 13.9.2013 also and thereafter 14.9.2013 being Second Saturday and 15.9.2013 being Sunday, the applicant continued to languish in jail.";