- (1.) MRS. Poonam Srivastava, J. Heard Sri K. D. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. for the State.
(2.) AT time when the transfer application was moved, notices were issued to the opposite party No. 2. Office report dated 26-9- 2006/3-10-2006 shows that the notices issued to the opposite party No. 2 has been received duly served. No counter-affidavit has been filed so far. However, since the para wise comments called for by this Court vide order dated 21-3-2006 from Smt. Pratibha Khanna, Additional Session Judge (Court No. 2), Rampur has been received, I proceed to decide this transfer application. In paragraph 13 of the affidavit filed by Sona Ram in support of the transfer application, it is alleged that the Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 2, Rampur cancelled the bail of the applicant vide order dated 11-5-2005 in collusion with the opposite party No. 2 on the baseless ground. However, the bail was once again allowed by this Court on 21-11-2005 in Bail Application No. 12149 of 2005. In paragraph 15 of the said affidavit, it is stated that Smt. Pratibha Khanna is adamant to send the applicant to jail and only with a view to harass him, issued warrants against the applicant on several dates. It is also stated that the trial Judge passed adverse orders against the applicant for sentimental reasons. She has specifically denied that the orders passed cancelling the bail as well as orders issuing warrants are not passed on any sentiments but only after consideration of various circumstances such as intimidating the witnesses. The order canceling bail dated 11-5-2005 has been annexed with her comments which shows that various cogent sons and circumstances compelled her to pass the order and it cannot be said that the bail was cancelled on flimsy grounds. When the bail of accused Madan Lal was cancelled, the co- accused Smt. Harrobai was warned that any future attempt to intimidate the witnesses will also meet the same fate. The report sent by the Additional Sessions Judge clearly shows that there are different Counsels for three accused namely Madan Lal, Harrobai and Jamil Miyan and on each and every date when the witnesses appear to record their statements, the trial is adjourned at the instance of one or the other Counsel. Cross-examination of the witnesses is being conducted by Sri O. B. L. Mathur Advocate on behalf of accused Harrobai, Sri Saraswati Prasad Advocate on behalf of accused Madan Lal and Sri Shyam Lal Advocate on behalf of accused Tantrik Jamil Shah. Though the evidence of complainant Darshan Lal and his wife Smt. Krishna Rani was completed on 27-10-2005 but the cross-examination of PW-3 Himmat Singh is still continuing. This report is dated 4-1-2006 and it is evident that the statement of PW-3 could not be recorded till April, 2006 from October, 2005. Besides, the report dated 15-4-2006 also reveals that a number of dates on which the trial was got adjourned at the instance of the accused. The learned trial Judge has also specifically denied that any order has been passed only on sentiments land not in accordance with law. In view of the reply received from the concerned Judge, I am of the view that the order passed by the concerned District Judge dated 7-2-2006 does not call for any interference whatsoever. In fact if such an action on the part of the accused of intimidating the witness and then yield allegation against the presiding officer, cannot be a basis for upholding the baseless apprehension of the applicant. The presiding officer cannot be expected to pass favourable orders in each and every case. There are situations and circumstances when the Presiding Officer has to take a strict view such as in the instant circumstances, when the witnesses were being intimidated. I am not inclined to transfer the case on the grounds raised in the instant application. The transfer application lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Application dismissed. .;