
The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the rejection of a transfer petition seeking transfer of a criminal trial on the ground that one son of the deceased worked on the Magistrate’s ministerial staff while another practised as an advocate in the same court.
The Court held that mere apprehension or presumption of influence is insufficient to transfer judicial proceedings without concrete material indicating bias or prejudice.
Observing that “judicial conscience is not so fragile,” the Court clarified that the presence of a relative connected to the court establishment does not automatically compromise fairness.
Finding no real likelihood of prejudice, the Court dismissed the transfer plea.
[Himanshu Katare v. State of Madhya Pradesh]
S PavithraBookmark