An accused sought transfer of his sessions trial out of the court hearing it, alleging prejudice by the presiding officer, after the District & Sessions Judge rejected his section 408 application. The Court found only general averments were made and dismissed the application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW
TRANSFER APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 6 of 2026
Rajnish Mishra
.....Applicant(s) Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ram Singh, Ravi Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 14
HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.
1. Heard.
2. This application has been filed with the following prayer:-
"To transfer the case of Sessions Trial No. 493 of 2024 "State Versus Rajnish Mishra & others" relating to case under section 302, 201 IPC, from the court of Special Judge Ayurved Scam Case/C.B.I., Lucknow to any other Sessions Court in DistrictLucknow, as well as set-aside the order dated 9.1.2026 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Application under section 408 Cr.P.C, as contained in Annexure No. 7 to this petition."
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was falsely implicated in the present case. Another F.I.R. was also lodged by the private respondent against the applicant for the offense u/s 406 I.P.C. In the said case also, charge-sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer in the most mechanical manner. Both the cases were assigned to learned Special Judge, Ayurveda Scam, C.B.I., Lucknow. The case in question was listed on 11.11.2025, on which date, due to non presence of the witnesses, order was passed by the competent Court for listing of the case on 13.11.2025. On the said date, a request was made before learned trial Court that the applicant-accused is busy in a family function on 13.11.2025 and after so much request, the matter was posted for hearing on 18.11.2025.
TACR No. 6 of 2026
2
It is further submitted that several massages were received by the applicant from informant for settlement and demanding amount of Rs. 50 lakhs. Learned trial Court was also in haste for conclusion of the trial of the case in question, hence, the applicant was under impression that he will not get fair trial in the Court concerned. On 11.11.2025, the Presiding Officer of the Court concerned wrote a letter to learned Sessions Judge for transfer of the case to any other Court. A transfer application was also moved by the applicant on 17.12.2025, but the same was rejected by learned Session Judge vide order dated 09.01.2026 without considering the request, hence, indulgence of this Court is required.
4. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer of the applicant and submits that the matter was listed before learned trial Court on 11.11.2025 and as the witnesses were not present, then learned trial Court issued non bailable warrant against the witnesses and also issued notice u/s 350 Cr.P.C., but objection was raised by learned counsel for the applicant and disbelief was expressed on the Presiding Officer by stating that he will move transfer application, and objection against the order of the Presiding Officer was also raised by informing that on 13.11.2025, the accused was busy in a family function, hence, some other date may be fixed; on his request, the matter was posted on 18.11.2025. He further submits that the applicant's counsel stated before learned trial Court that he will move transfer application as he does not have trust on the Court. He next submits that general and vague averments have been made in the transfer application and learned Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the application with the observation that there is no specific ground for transfer of the case and merely on the basis of general averments, the case cannot be transferred.
5. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the letter dated 11.11.2025 written by the Presiding Officer, transfer application moved by the applicant, the impugned order dated 09.01.2026 as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that merely on the basis of general averments, the trial of the case in question cannot be transferred. In the present case, non bailable warrant as well as notice u/s 350 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the witnesses by the trial Court. The request of the applicant was accepted in relation to fixing
TACR No. 6 of 2026
3
some other date in the case in question. It is the duty of the trial Court to ensure the presence of the witnesses. The trial Court had passed order on the basis of order-sheet. Merely on the basis of order passed by the trial Court for ensuring the presence of the witnesses, it cannot be presumed that the trial Court was prejudice. Therefore, there is no illegality in the order passed by the trial Court.
6. With the above observations, the application, being misconceived, is dismissed .
(Rajeev Singh,J.)
February 23, 2026
Arpan
Digitally signed by :- ARPAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Should Sessions Trial No. 493 of 2024 be transferred from the Special Judge, Ayurveda Scam Case/C.B.I., Lucknow on grounds of alleged prejudice?
Was the District & Sessions Judge's rejection of the applicant's section 408 Cr.P.C. transfer application justified?
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Rajnish Mishra
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko.
Another
Rajeev Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
