Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

NEHA BALKRISHNA PATILversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Disposal
Rejected

Holding

The application for transfer was dismissed as the trial was already part‑heard and the court had jurisdiction.

Summary

Neha Balkrishna Patil applied to the Kolhapur High Court seeking transfer of criminal case R.C.C.No.203 of 2024 from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kolhapur to a court in Pune. She argued that a fair trial could not be ensured locally, that a serious accident prevented her from attending proceedings, and that the accused continued to stalk her digitally. The State and a co‑respondent opposed, noting that charges were already framed and the applicant’s examination‑in‑chief had partially been recorded. The Court observed that the offence fell within Kolhapur’s territorial jurisdiction and that the trial was already underway with the applicant having testified. Considering the advanced stage of the trial, the Court held that transferring a part‑heard case would be inappropriate and dismissed the application.

Issues considered

  • Whether the trial should be transferred from Kolhapur to Pune on the ground of alleged bias and the victim's inability to attend.
  • Whether the stage of the proceedings (part‑heard trial) precludes a transfer of jurisdiction.

Subjects

  • transfer of trial
  • jurisdiction
  • fair trial
  • victim trauma
  • digital stalking
  • part‑heard trial

Judgment

                                                                                            43-APPLN-17-2026 (CR).odt




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                            CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                                         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                             CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 17 OF 2026


                        Neha Balkrishna Patil                                     ]     Applicant

                                   versus

                        The State of Maharashtra and others                       ]     Respondents

                                                           .....
                        Mr. Shailesh Chavan, Advocate for Applicant.

                        Mr. P.P. Deokar, A.P.P, for Respondent No. 1 and 2 – State.

                        Mr. Aditya Sanjay Ghatge, for Respondent No.3.

                        Mr. Khandu Gaikwad, P.S.I, Laxmipuri, Kolhapur, present.
                                                         …..
           Digitally
           signed by
           SHAILAJA
SHAILAJA
SHRIKANT
           SHRIKANT
           HALKUDE
                                                               CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.
HALKUDE    Date:
           2026.09.04
           18:34:43
                                                               DATE  : SEPTEMBER 3, 2026
           +0530




                        PER COURT :

                        1.                  The Applicant seeks transfer of R.C.C.No.203 of 2024, pending

                        before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kolhapur, to a Court of

                        competent jurisdiction at Pune.

                        2.                  Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant, learned A.P.P, for

                        Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 - State and the learned Advocate for Respondent

                        No.3.


                        Shailaja                                                                          Page 1 of 3
                                                                 43-APPLN-17-2026 (CR).odt



3.           The first ground argued by the Applicant is that she apprehends

that a fair and impartial trial may not be possible within the local jurisdiction

at Kolhapur. Secondly, she submits that she has suffered a serious and

traumatic accident and, therefore, is unable to attend the proceedings at

Kolhapur. Lastly, she submits that the accused has continued to stalk her

through digital means and on the LinkedIn platform and, therefore, seeks

transfer of the proceedings.

4.           The learned A.P.P. as well as the learned Advocate for

Respondent No.3 opposed the Application contending that the charge has

already been framed and the examination-in-chief of the Applicant has partly

been recorded on 18th June, 2025. On these grounds, they urged dismissal of

the Application.

5.           I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned

Advocates and perused the material on record. It is not in dispute that the

alleged offence was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kolhapur. As such, the Court at Kolhapur

is competent to try and entertain the proceedings. Apart from this, the trial

has already commenced, and the Applicant has entered into the witness box.

Her examination-in-chief has also been partly recorded. In such an

eventuality, it would not be appropriate to transfer the part-heard trial to

another Court.

Shailaja                                                                       Page 2 of 3
                                                                43-APPLN-17-2026 (CR).odt



6.           In the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly

having regard to the stage of the proceedings, I am not inclined to transfer the

proceedings from Kolhapur to Pune on the grounds urged by the Applicant.

7.           The Application being bereft of merits stands rejected.




                                                    (ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)




Shailaja                                                                      Page 3 of 3


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.