ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

                             Ist. Crl. Transfer Appln.   No.S-29  of 2023. 

DATE OF HEARING

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

1. For orders on office objection ‘A’.

2. For hearing of main case.

Mr. Abdul Khaliq Bughio, advocate for the applicants.

                        Mr. Shoeban Ali Mallah, advocate for the respondent No.3.

                        Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Addl. P. G.

Date of hearing         : 06.11.2023

Date of Order            : 20.11.2023.

O R D E R

            Through this Crl. Transfer Application, applicants Irfan Ali and Saleem have prayed for transfer of Sessions Case No.291/2023, Re- The State v. Moazam Ali Ranjhani and others, from the Court of IV-Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu to any other Court having jurisdiction in the District.

2.         Pursuant to directions contained under previous order, trial Court has submitted progress report as well as its comments, which on perusal reveals that after framing of Charge against accused on 07.6.2023, the prosecution examined complainant Rajib Ali and P.W Umed Ali and the Counsel for         co-accused Moazam and Ameer Muhammad Shah has cross-examined them, whereas the applicants herein have not conducted their cross-examination.

3.         Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the Presiding Officer (Mr. Abdul Haque Mangrio) has become biased and despite request for grant of time made in Court, he expressed that issue involved in this case will ultimately be resolved by the High Court, therefore, the applicants apprehend that they would not get fair and complete justice before the trial Court; hence, submits that by granting this transfer application captioned Sessions Case may be made over to any other Court having jurisdiction in the district.

4.         Learned Addl. P. G submits that no concrete material or evidence has been brought on record to substantiate the allegations leveled by the applicants against the Presiding Officer, more particularly, when counsel for co-accused has cross-examined the witnesses and has not shown any biasness on the part of the Presiding Officer. He, therefore, opposes the transfer application.

5.         Mr. Shoeban Ali Mallah, learned counsel for the complainant/ respondent No.3, also opposes the application, on the ground that the applicants were granted bail by the same Court; however, they filed an application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C which has not been decided by the trial Court for the reason that the trial has commenced, hence the applicants under apprehension have maintained instant transfer application.

6.         The applicants seek transfer of their case merely on the apprehension that they have lost confidence in the Presiding Officer of learned trial Court; however, such apprehension of the applicants is not based on any substantial material justifying transfer of the case from learned trial Court. The only reason behind this transfer application appears to be non-deciding of application u/s 265-K, Cr.PC moved by the applicants. Apprehension based on unfounded and conjectured supposition cannot provide basis for transfer of case from one Court to the other. Nothing has been brought on record in support of the grounds agitated for transfer of the case.  A case cannot be transferred on the vague and absurd allegations and at the whim of a party who moves application expressing no confidence in the trial Judge and desiring transfer of case on flimsy, frivolous and baseless grounds/allegations. This would set up an unhealthy precedent and would be tantamount to conferring powers of transfer upon parties defeating the purpose of Section 526, Cr.P.C. 

7.         For the foregoing facts and reasons, the instant application being devoid of any merit is dismissed.

                                                                                                                        JUDGE