‘No One Can Browbeat a Judge’: Allahabad High Court Rejects Plea to Transfer Lucknow Trial

The Allahabad High Court recently rejected a plea seeking transfer of a pending criminal trial from Lucknow to Varanasi, holding that the applicant’s allegations of threat, intimidation and fear for personal safety were “vague, bald and without any foundation".

The bench of Justice Saurabh Lavania said no material had been produced to show a reasonable apprehension that justice would not be done at the existing court.

Court dismissed the transfer application filed by Pradeep Kumar Singh in a sessions trial of 2021 (State vs. Aman Bahadur and Others), where eight individuals stood chargesheeted. Charges in the case were framed on 26 September 2022 before the court of the Additional District Judge/Special Judge (P.C. Act-I), Lucknow.

The applicant claimed that all the accused, identified as Aman Bahadur, Abhishek Pandey, Tarun Singh, Anjani Kumar Yadav, Shubham Anand Mishra, Nikhil Mishra, Arban Shukla and Vimal Singh, were “notorious and criminal-minded” and, along with their family members, had been attempting to pressure him into withdrawing from the proceedings. He further alleged that his son had been murdered by the same group and that he feared for his life, particularly when travelling from his hometown Varanasi to Lucknow to attend court.

The application also asserted that despite multiple hearing dates fixed between October 2022 and June 2024, witnesses could not be examined because of threats issued by the accused or their associates. Two witnesses who did appear had turned hostile, the applicant said, allegedly owing to intimidation.

Justice Lavania noted that the prayer sought a transfer of the case to a sessions court in Varanasi but held that such a request had to be evaluated in light of well-settled principles laid down by constitutional courts.

While examining the legal framework governing transfer of criminal trials, the bench referred to a series of Supreme Court and High Court judgments that emphasise that transfer is an exceptional remedy, and that courts must exercise caution before shifting cases from one jurisdiction to another. These precedents, court noted, underline that mere apprehension, unverified fear, or dissatisfaction with the conduct of proceedings does not suffice.

Relying on those earlier judgments, court recorded the legal principles that allegations of bias or apprehension must be reasonable; vague accusations cannot justify transfer; litigants cannot “browbeat,” manipulate or engage in forum-shopping to obtain a different court; and judges should not be intimidated by unfounded claims of partiality.

Notably, the High Court also found that the transfer application suffered from a procedural defect that not all accused had been impleaded as opposite parties. The omission, court held, was significant because an order of transfer affects the rights and interests of all accused persons and cannot be considered in their absence.

Finding no substantiated grounds to justify the request, the High Court dismissed the transfer plea and made no order as to costs.

Case Title: Pradeep Kumar Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. And Another

Order Date: November 25, 2025

Bench: Justice Saurabh Lavania