DEBI PRASAD SENGUPTA, J. - (1.) THIS is an application under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for transfer of a Sessions case being Sessions Trial No. 6(8)/92 pending before the Court of the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Barasat, North 24-Parganas, under Sections 342/304/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) THE petitioners were put up on trial before the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge to meet a charge under Sections 342/304/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case in short is that victim Srikanta Bala was married to one Iva Mondal (Petitioner No. 4 herein), daughter of one Ramen Mondal (Petitioner No. 1 herein). Thereafter, Srikanta and his wife started residing in the house of Srikanta's father Balaram Bala (De facto-complainant in the case). After 15 days Srikanta left his house for unknown destination and the Petitioner No. 4 namely Iva Mondal left for her father's house. On 22.10.89 Srikanta came to the house of his elder sister Bijoli Bairagi and while he was taking his food in the said house, the present petitioners came there and took Srikanta to the house of one Babu Mondal (Petitioner No. 3). Thereafter all the petitioners started assaulting Srikanta causing bleeding injuries on his person and he became unconscious. The present petitioners thereafter took him to Habra Hospital, but on the way he expired. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, North 24 Paraganas at Barasat and subsequently the same was transferred to the Court of the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, North 24-Paraganas, Barasat for trial.
(3.) MR . Jaymalya Bagchi, learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that the learned trial Judge is conducting the trial in an absolutely prejudicial manner which has created a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioners that they will be denied of a fair trial if the trial is conducted by the said learned Judge. According to the learned Advocate of the petitioners the prejudicial manner in which the learned trial Judge is conducting the trial, will be evident from the following facts :- (a) On 20.6.1997 P.W.5 was examined and was declared hostile by the prosecution and he was cross-examined by the prosecution. At this juncture the learned trial Judge started threatening the said witness by saying that he will be taken into custody if he does not speak the truth. The manner in which the learned Judge threatened the said witness created an apprehension in the minds of the petitioners that the learned Judge is biased in favour of the prosecution. (b) The learned trial Judge was so enraged that he detained the witness in the Court room directing him not to go out of the Court room until ordered by the Court. (c) In spite of the well-settled principle of law that the accused persons need not stand in the dock unless it is required for a particular purpose like identification, the learned Judge directed that the petitioners be kept standing throughout the trial. It was submitted by the petitioners' learned Advocate that the attitude of the learned Judge in making the petitioners stand throughout the trial has also shaken the confidence of the petitioners in the learned trial Judge and they are apprehensive that they will not get Justice from that Court. 5. On 20.6.1997 an application was filed on behalf of the petitioners before the learned trial Judge, wherein it was stated in the facts and circumstances as stated above the petitioners reasonably apprehend that they would not get fair trial from that Court. So a prayer was made for at least two months time to move the higher Court for appropriate order. ;