Shivam @ Shubham Nagar vs State of U.P. and Another

This Criminal Misc. Transfer Application under Section 447 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the applicant- Shivam @ Shubham Nagar with the following prayers:-

¶11

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this transfer application and transfer Session Trial No. 596 of 2024 (State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Shivam @ Shubham Nagar) arising out of Case Crime No. 24 of 2024 under Sections 302, 307, 34, 504, 120B IPC and Section 3/25/27 of the Arms Act, Police Station Mundali, District Meerut, pending in the court of Session Judge, Meerut to any other Sessions Judge of concurrent jurisdiction within the District and Sessions Court, Meerut.

¶12

It is further prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to stay further proceedings of Session Trial No. 596 of 2024 (State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Shivam @ ShubhamNagar) arising out of Case Crime No. 24 of 2024 under Sections 302, 307, 34, 504, 120B IPC and Section 3/25/27 of the Arms Act, Police Station Mundali, District Meerut, pending in the court of Session Judge, Meerut till the pendency of the present Transfer application.

TACR No. 72 of 2026

2

And/or

this Hon'ble court be pleased to pass any order or further orders which this Hon'ble court may deem fit on the facts and circumstances of the present case."

¶17

The facts of the case are that a F.I.R. was lodged on 08.02.2024 by opposite party no. 2/Om against the applicant and 03 others as Case Crime No. 0024 of 2024, under Sections 504, 307, 302, 120B I.P.C., Police Station- Mundali, District Meerut. The matter was investigated and charge sheet dated 04.5.2024 was submitted under Sections 504,307,302,120B,34 I.P.C. and Sections 3/25/27 Arms Act. The court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut vide order dated 06.5.2024 took cognizance upon the same and summoned the accused. The trial in the matter started and as per para-10 of the affidavit in support of this transfer application, testimony of P.W.-11 the second Investigating Officer, is being recorded. An application for transfer of the case from the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 18, Meerut to any other Court within the Sessions Division, Meerut was filed on 22.12.2025 which has been rejected by the Sessions Judge, Meerut vide order dated 07.1.2026. This application for transfer has thus been filed before this Court with the prayers as aforesaid.

¶18

Submissions of learned counsel for the applicant are as under:-

¶19

(A) The accused moved an application dated 02.6.2025 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall 05 witnesses namely P.W.-1 Om Dhama@Bhulwa, P.W.-2 Baljora, P.W.-3 Dheeraj, P.W.-4 H.C. 1396 Mandeen Trar and P.W.-5 Chaman Singh, as they were not cross-examined by their earlier counsel and since new counsel was engaged the said prayer was made. The said application stood rejected vide order dated 27.6.2025 by the trial court, para-12 and 13 of the affidavit in support this transfer application have been placed before the Court for the same.

¶20

(B) An application dated 6.6.2025 was preferred by the co-accused stating that co-accused Mohit is confined in jail since 09.2.2024 and he has

¶21

TACR No. 72 of 2026

¶22

3

¶23

sustained 2 gunshot injury and was treated in District Jail Meerut and his injuries have not been explained by the prosecution and thus the injury report, treatment papers and recovered bullet from the body of the coaccused be summoned and as they were not made part of the investigation. The said application dated 6.6.2025 was rejected by the trial court, para-14 and 15 of the affidavit have been placed before the Court for the same.

¶24

(C) An application dated 29.7.2025 was filed under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to summon the police papers for proving innocence of the accused which was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 31.10.2025 on the ground that it is misconceived and merely to delay the trial and the accused shall have opportunity to lead evidence at the stage of defence, para-16 and 17 of the affidavit have been placed before the Court for the same.

¶25

(D) An application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. dated 16.10.2025 was filed with the prayer to amend charge on the basis of site plan disputing the place of occurrence. The same was rejected vide order dated 07.11.2025 on the ground that it is merely to delay the trial, para- 18 and 19 of the affidavit have been placed before the Court for the same.

¶26

(E) Another application dated 12.12.2025 under Section 91 Cr.P.C. was filed by the accused to summon the police papers which were denied by P.W.-11 the second Investigating Officer, in his cross-examination. The said application was rejected on the ground that it is for delay of trial vide order dated 15.12.2025, para-20 and 21 of the affidavit have been placed before the Court for the same.

¶27

(F) Looking to the orders of the trial court there is apprehension that the applicant/accused will not get fair chance in trial for his defence and the trial court would not properly adjudicate the matter. Thus the trial be transferred to some other court having similar jurisdiction.

¶28

Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the petition and the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that apprehension of the applicant is totally unfounded and it is only a suspicion in his mind which cannot take place of apprehension. It is submitted that the instances as have been shown and argued for transfer of

¶29

TACR No. 72 of 2026

¶30

4

¶31

trial to some other courts were such which has legal remedies available against the orders of the trial court but the accused/applicant did not choose to explore the same and the said orders attained finality. It is submitted that there is no reasonable apprehension shown on the basis of pleading and arguments that the accused/applicant would not get justice which would justify transfer. It is submitted that drawing of inference by rejection of applications of the applicant by the trial court but not further challenging the same even after having remedy against it, cannot be considered to be a reasonable apprehension of justice not being done. It is submitted that apprehension of the applicant is totally unfounded and the application deserves to be dismissed.

¶32

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant an accused facing trial. The trial reached at an advanced stage in which at least 10 witnesses have been examined and the statement of P.W.-11 being the second Investigating Officer is underway. The ground as argued and pleaded for transfer of the case from the present court to another court in the same judgeship is on account of the fact of certain applications moved by the applicant/accused were rejected by the trial court and thus inference is being drawn that the accused will not get justice by the said court as the said court is not appreciating the matters in its true perspective. In so far as the orders as are being shown to have been passed by the trial court are concerned, the same have been passed in regular trial proceedings but there is nothing on records and even in the argument of learned counsel for the applicant to show that the same were challenged and an adverse remark was made against the trial court holding the view of the trial court to be patently illegal but the said orders were passed in a routine course of trial while proceeding with the trial and dealing with the said applications. The said applicants were taken up and decided by the trial court and against the said orders legal remedy were available, which have not been explored by the accused/applicant. A transfer application on the said ground already stands rejected by the Sessions Judge concerned. The applicant has tried to create suspicion by placing the said applications and orders of the trial court that he would not get justice and thus was trying to justify filing of the present transfer application and impressing upon that ground and

¶33

TACR No. 72 of 2026

¶34

5

¶35

relief as prayed therein. The records do not show any such reasonable apprehension on the part of the accused/applicant which would justify transfer. The order of the Sessions Judge concerned is well considered order rejecting the application for transfer. No ground for interference therein is made out.

¶36