Barkat Ali Zaidi - (1.) APPLICANT Smt. Sheela, who is an accused in Sessions Trial No. 156 of 2004 (State v. Yogesh and Sheela) under Sections 498A and 304B, I.P.C. and 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/ F.T.C./Court No. 17, Bulandshahr, wants her case transferred to some other Court.
(2.) HEARD Sri Shiv Krishna Bahadur, advocate for the applicant and Sri Mohammad Israil Siddiqui, Addl. Government Advocate for the State. The ground on which the transfer is sought is that the trial Judge refused to dispense with the personal presence of the accused through their counsel on the date fixed for defence and rejected their application. The District and Sessions Judge has rejected the transfer application and the same cannot be faulted because the trial Judge has not exceeded his limits and has not demonstrated in any manner a partisan attitude. But, it must also be said at the same time that the trial courts should be liberal, in granting exemptions unless the presence of accused is considered necessary for some purpose, but the mere fact that the Court for some reasons, which have not been disclosed, wanted the accused to be present in person during the defence evidence, will not provide adequate ground for transfer. As such, the trial Judge will rectify his order and cancel the order of issuance non-bailable warrants against the accused.
(3.) WITH these observations, the transfer application is rejected.;