‘Mere Allegation of Bias Won’t Do’: Allahabad HC Says Accused Can’t Forum-Shop

The bench of Justice Saurabh Lavania held that a judicial order passed by a judge cannot, by itself, be made the foundation for transfer unless there exists a bona fide and reasonable apprehension that justice will not be done.

Mere allegation of bias or possible apprehension should not and ought not to be the basis of transfer, the court held.

"The expression of apprehension, must be proved /substantiated by circumstances and material placed by such applicant before the Court. It cannot be taken as granted that mere allegation would be sufficient to justify transfer," court said.

The application had been filed in a 2006 case registered at Mohanlalganj Police Station, Lucknow. The case pertains to serious charges under Sections 364A, 302, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, involving allegations of kidnapping for ransom, murder, and destruction of evidence.

Vikas Gupta @ Monu Gupta, one of the accused, alleged that the trial judge acted unjustly by rejecting his plea under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which sought recall of a witness for further examination. The order dated May 30, 2025, was challenged before the High Court under Section 482 CrPC and remains pending. Meanwhile, Gupta approached the High Court seeking transfer of the entire trial, claiming the trial court’s conduct indicated bias.

Rejecting these contentions, Justice Lavania referred to a long line of judgments, including Gurcharan Das Chadha vs. State of Rajasthan (1966) 2 SCR 686, Chetak Construction Ltd. vs. Om Prakash (1998) 4 SCC 577, and Lalu Prasad Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand (2013) 8 SCC 593.

He observed that the “right to a fair trial” under Article 21 of the Constitution demands both impartiality and public confidence in the process—but this confidence cannot be undermined by baseless or speculative claims.

“The apprehension of not getting a fair and impartial trial must be reasonable and not imaginary, based upon conjectures or surmises,” the court said, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Abdul Nazar Madani v. State of Tamil Nadu (2000) 6 SCC 204.

It also reminded litigants that making allegations against presiding judges in an attempt to delay proceedings or manipulate the forum constitutes a threat to the administration of justice.

Justice Lavania noted that judges are not expected to adopt a “sphinx-like attitude” and may express opinions or ask questions during hearings to clarify issues. Such conduct, he said, should not be mistaken for bias.

“The fountain of justice cannot be allowed to be polluted by disgruntled litigants. The protection is necessary for the courts to enable them to discharge their judicial functions without fear,” the court observed, quoting the Supreme Court’s warning in Ajay Kumar Pandey v. Advocate (1998) 7 SCC 248.

Emphasizing that transfer power must be exercised cautiously and in exceptional circumstances, the High Court dismissed the plea, holding that no such circumstances existed in this case.

"Mere suspicion by the party that he will not get justice would not justify transfer. There must be a reasonable apprehension to that effect. There must be a reasonable apprehension to that effect. A judicial order made by a Judge legitimately cannot be made foundation for a transfer of case. Mere presumption of possible apprehension should not and ought not be the basis of transfer of any case from one case to another. It is only in very special circumstances, when such grounds are taken, the Court must find reasons exist to transfer a case, not otherwise," court said.

Case Title: Vikas Gupta @ Monu Gupta vs. State Of U.P. Through Principal Secretary Home Lucknow And Another

Order Date: October 16, 2025

Bench: Justice Saurabh Lavania