B.A. Zaidi, J.@mdashIn this application or transfer of the above noted cases to another Court, the applicantcomplainant of the case alleges that the Trial Judge (Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.G. Act) Ballia) has been very soft and lenient because he did not issue nonbailable warrants against the accused and because of their non appearance before the Court and gave another date for their appearance and for furnishing bail.
2. Heard Sri Arun Kumar Upadhayay, Advocate for the applicant and Sri Mohammad Israil Siddiqui, Addl. Government Advocate for the State.
3. There is no allegation that the Presiding Officer has been approached and has become suspectible to solicitations or has agreed to help them on quidproquo basis.
4. The only apprehension the applicant harbours is because of the tolerant attitude of the Judge towards the accused. There is nothing wrong if the Judge exhibited restraint in issuance of nonbailable warrants, and no inference of bias can be drawn merely because of such attitude.
5. The other ground, which the Counsel for the applicant mentioned before the Court was that the Trial Judge had passed the order to release the accused on the same bonds, which the accused had submitted earlier, and which order was subsequently modified by the High Court vide order dated 11.10.2007 and directions were issued for fresh bail bonds being obtained.
6. This again is just another example of little lenience and no bias can be inferred.
7. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, there seems no apprehension to transfer the case from the file of Judge concerned.
8. There will arise occasions where the Judge may be able to demonstrate that he is firm enough.
9. Application rejected.
