Allahabad High Court
MANOJ SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- VIKRAM D CHAUHAN
Holding
The petition for transfer was dismissed as the mere fact of the opposite party being a practicing advocate does not warrant transfer.
Summary
Manoj Singh, the complainant, filed a transfer application seeking to move Bail Application No.4864 of 2026 (Anup Kaushik v. State of U.P.) from the Aligarh District and Sessions Court to another district court, alleging that the opposing party No.2 is a practicing advocate. The applicant relied on paragraphs of an affidavit and pointed to the interim anticipatory bail orders dated 24.8.2026 (rejection) and 2.9.2026 (grant). The court observed that no misconduct was alleged against the advocate and that merely being a practicing lawyer is not a sufficient ground for transfer unless unbecoming conduct is shown. Consequently, the transfer petition was dismissed. The decision underscores that jurisdictional transfer cannot be predicated solely on the professional status of an opposing party.
Issues considered
- Whether the mere fact that the opposite party is a practicing advocate constitutes a valid ground for transferring a bail application to another court.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 61(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 123, 308(5), 308(6), 309(4), 318(4), 352
Subjects
- transfer of bail application
- anticipatory bail
- advocate
- jurisdiction
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
TRANSFER APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 567 of 2026
Manoj Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Gaurav Singh Chauhan, R.P.S.
Chauhan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 55
HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for the State.
2. The present transfer application has been filed for transfer the Bail
Application No.4864 of 2026 (Anup Kaushik Vs. State of U.P) under
Sections 308(6), 308(5), 318(4), 123, 309(4), 61(2), 352 BNS, Police
Station-Quarsi, District-Aligarh from the court of learned District and
Sessions Judge, Aligarh to some other competent court at District Court.
3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is complainant.
Earlier interim anticipatory bail was rejected by order dated 24.8.2026,
however subsequently, interim order has been granted by order dated
2.9.2026. Learned counsel for applicant has relied upon para 10 and 11 of
the affidavit to submit that opposite party no.2 is practicing Advocate and
as such, matter be transferred.
4. It is to be seen that there is no allegation in the petition against opposite
party no.2 that he has misconducted himself. The only allegation is that he
is practicing Advocate. Merely of being a practicing Advocate, it cannot
be a ground for transfer of the case unless it has been shown that the
conduct of opposite party no.2 is unbecoming of Advocate.
5. In view of aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.
September 14, 2026
D. Tamang
(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
DHIRENDRA TAMANG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…