Dismissed¶10

Himanshu Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Apr 2025TACR/185/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:51089 | Allahabad High Court (Court No.77), Manoj Bajaj, J., order dated 8.4.2025. Keywords: transfer of criminal trial; Section 447 BNSS 2023; Section 406 IPC; Case Crime No.496/2019; PS Sadar Bazar Mathura; advocate-complainant; apprehension of threat; non-bailable warrants; notices to bail sureties; order dated 18.3.2025; transfer from Mathura to Lucknow; application dismissed.

What did the court decide?

After hearing learned counsel and considering his submissions, the Court found no merit in the transfer application. ¶8

Himanshu Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal trial against the applicant (Case No.28721 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime No.496 of 2019, Section 406 I.P.C.) pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Mathura should be transferred to a competent court outside Mathura (District Lucknow) on the ground that the opposite party no.2-complainant, a practising advocate at Mathura, threatens the applicant when he visits the Court.

¶7

Court's answer

After hearing learned counsel and considering his submissions, the Court found no merit in the transfer application.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

The applicant's own affidavit filed in support of the application recorded that the trial Court was already taking relevant measures to secure his presence by issuing non-bailable warrants, undermining the apprehension-based ground for transfer.

¶8

Key takeaways

A copy of the trial Court's order dated 18.3.2025 (Annexure-4) showed that the trial Court had issued notices to the sureties who had furnished bonds at the stage of the applicant's release on bail (sentence runs from paragraph 8 into paragraph 9 in the source).ratio¶8
Merely because the complainant is an advocate is not, by itself, a valid ground for transfer of the case.ratio¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Transfer application (criminal) under Section 447 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking transfer of trial Case No.28721 of 2021 (State Vs. Himanshu), arising out of Case Crime No.496 of 2019 under Section 406 I.P.C., Police Station Sadar Bazar, Mathura, from the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Mathura to a competent court in District Lucknow, dismissed. Held: (i) the applicant's own affidavit showed the trial Court was already securing his presence by issuing non-bailable warrants, and notices had been issued to his bail sureties vide order dated 18.3.2025 (Annexure-4); (ii) the mere fact that the complainant is a practising advocate at Mathura cannot be construed as a valid ground for transfer.

Himanshu Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Himanshu Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases