Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----S. 526—Transfer of case—Apprehension of bias—Grounds for transfer—Scope and principles. Petitioner sought transfer of a criminal trial from the Court of Magistrate Section-30, Chishtian, on grounds of alleged bias, claiming that the Magistrate and the complainant's counsel belonged to the same caste, and the Magistrate was expediting the trial unfairly, even recording witness statements during strike days. Held, mere apprehension in the mind of a party about injustice at the hands of a presiding officer is no ground for the transfer of a case unless supported by substantial evidence or circumstances demonstrating bias. Bias must be such that it creates a reasonable apprehension in the mind of an ordinary person that the judge cannot act impartially. A judicial officer is expected to decide cases based on evidence and material presented in court, and the mere caste affiliation with counsel does not automatically imply bias. Moreover, expeditious trial is a legal requirement and not a ground for suspicion of bias. The court emphasized that frequent transfer applications without substantial grounds may constitute harassment of judicial officers. ----Cited Cases: Muhammad Nawaz v. Ghulam Kadir and others (PLD 1973 SC 327) Daud Iqbal Pervaiz and another v. The State (PLD 1990 SC 705) Aqa Syed Asghar Hussain v. The State (1968 SCMR 381) Muhammad Arshad v. The State (1997 SCMR 949) Sardar Khan and others v. Muhammad Afzal and others (2013 PSC Criminal 22) Ms. Benazir Bhutto v. The President of Pakistan and another (1992 SCMR 140) Disposition: Petition dismissed. (b) Judicial Bias—Standards for determining bias—Reasonable apprehension—Scope: Mere suspicion of bias or unfounded allegations do not warrant the transfer of a case. Courts must assess the reasonableness of apprehension in light of the surrounding circumstances and the standard of an ordinary, reasonable person. Bias can be inferred if the judicial officer has a pecuniary or personal interest in the case, but not from social affiliations or caste identity alone. Judicial integrity cannot be undermined by baseless allegations. ----Cited Cases: Rahim Bakhsh v. Khalilur Rehman (PLD 1971 Lah. 517) Manak Lal, Advocate v. Dr. Prem Chand Singhvi and others (PLD 1957 SC (Ind.) 346) Anwar and another v. The Crown (PLD 1955 Federal Court 185) Terrance Williams v. Pennsylvania (2016 SCMR 1561) Disposition: Petition dismissed. (c) Fair Trial—Judicial Conduct—Burden of Proof on Alleging Party: For allegations of judicial bias to succeed, the petitioner must provide clear and cogent evidence demonstrating actual bias or conduct compromising impartiality. Allegations based solely on oral claims or unsubstantiated suspicions cannot form the basis for transferring a case. In the absence of material evidence pointing to misconduct, the presumption of judicial integrity prevails. ----Cited Cases: Islamic Republic of Pakistan v. Abdul Wali Khan (PLD 1976 SC 57) Adan Haji Jama and others v. The King (1948 AC 225) Disposition: Petition dismissed.

Summary: Background:The case involves a petition filed by Mehmood under section 526 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) seeking the transfer of a criminal trial titled "The State versus Mehmood, etc." The petitioner sought the transfer from the Court of Mr. Muhammad Asif Gill, learned Magistrate Section-30 Chishtian, to another Court at the District Headquarter Bahawalnagar. The petitioner alleged bias on the part of the magistrate and unfair trial due to his caste affiliation with the complainant's counsel.---Issues:Whether the petitioner's apprehension of bias on the part of the magistrate justifies the transfer of the case.Whether the actions of the magistrate indicate prejudice or unfair treatment towards the petitioner.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:After hearing the arguments and examining the record, the court found that the petitioner's apprehension of bias was not well-founded. The court reasoned that mere caste affiliation between the magistrate and the complainant's counsel does not imply bias. Furthermore, the court noted that the petitioner had filed a similar application for transfer in another case, which suggested an attempt to overawe the judicial officer. The court cited several precedents, including "MUHAMMAD NAWAZ Versus GHULAM KADIR AND 3 OTHERS" (PLD 1973 Supreme Court 327), which established that mere apprehension of bias is not sufficient grounds for transfer unless supported by material evidence. Additionally, the court referred to section 556 of the Cr.P.C., which prohibits a judge or magistrate from trying a case in which they have a personal interest, and concluded that there was no evidence to suggest such bias on the part of the magistrate. Therefore, the court dismissed the petition for transfer.---Citations/Precedents:"MUHAMMAD NAWAZ Versus GHULAM KADIR AND 3 OTHERS" (PLD 1973 Supreme Court 327)"TERRANCE WILLIAMS Versus PENNSYLVANIA" (2016 SCMR 1561)"ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INTERIOR AND KASHMIR AFFAIRS, ISLAMABAD versus ABDUL WALI KHAN, M. N. A., FORMER PRESIDENT OF DEFUNCT NATIONAL AWAMI PARTY" (P L D 1976 Supreme Court 57)"ANWAR and another versus THE CROWN" (PLD 1955 Federal Court 185)"Ms. BENAZIR BHUTTO versus THE PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN and another" (1992 SCMR 140)"MANAK LAL, Advocate Versus DR. PREM CHAND SINGHVI and others" (PLD 1957 Supreme Court (Ind.) 346)---Quote:Mere apprehension or bias is no ground to seek recusal of a Judge or Transfer of case, barring personal interest as mentioned in section 556 of Cr.P.C.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 526---Transfer of case---Allegation of sending threatening messages---Scope---Applicant sought transfer of his case from one district to another on the grounds that he wasMinister of the Province and that serious threats of dire consequences had been extended tohim by the complainant---Applicant had alleged the threatening messages from thecomplainant but he had not produced copies of the messages or report from the concernedquarter---Mere mentioning in the application that threatening messages were delivered,without cogent reasons, could not be considered---Applicant had not produced anyconvincing material nor mentioned such authority to which he approached to lodge thecomplaint---Simply on apprehension of the applicant for danger to his life a murder casecould not be transferred---Reason given by the applicant for his security had no sanctity---Application, being devoid of merits, was dismissed.(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 526---Transfer of case---Scope---Transfer of case cannot be claimed as a matter ofroutine or at the wish of the parties unless it is apparent on the face of record that partiesseeking the transfer cannot get fair and just treatment or trial.(c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 526---Transfer of case---Scope---Case not to be transferred from the court ofcompetent jurisdiction unless the allegations/grounds seeking transfer of the case aresupported by strong cogent reasons or convincing evidence.

Summary: Background:In Cr.Misc. No. 90 of 2019, the petitioner Sher Alam sought to transfer his criminal case from the court of the Sessions Judge Astore to any court of competent jurisdiction at Gilgit under Section 526 Cr.P.C. Sher Alam and his co-accused were charged under Sections 114 and 302/34 of the PPC for the alleged murder of Tahir Nawaz's son on 13-9-2018. The case was registered at Police Station Bunji District Astore via FIR No. 03/2018.----Issues:Whether the criminal case against Sher Alam should be transferred from the Sessions Judge Astore to a court in Gilgit.Whether there is a credible threat to Sher Alam's life necessitating the transfer.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court granted the petition for the transfer of the case. The key points of the judgment are:Proximity and Convenience: The petitioner's village, Bunji, is closer to Gilgit than Astore, making it more convenient for both parties to attend proceedings in Gilgit.Threat to Life: The petitioner apprehended a threat to his life from the complainant party while traveling to Astore. This threat was substantiated by an incident where the son of the complainant threatened Sher Alam, which was reported to and confirmed by the Sessions Judge Astore.Hostile Environment: The court acknowledged that the petitioner?s apprehension of danger to his life and the hostile environment were valid concerns.

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 526---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302---Murder trial---Transfer of proceedings---Security of prosecution witnesses---Complainant sought transfer of trial from court at place'S' to court at place 'D' on grounds of security of prosecution witnesses---Validity---Application of complainant was supported by affidavits of prosecution witnesses who werestar eye-witnesses of the case and they were under fear and threat to appear before TrialCourt at place 'S' and record their statements---Apprehension of security of prosecutionwitnesses existed which was likely to result in inconvenience/ intimidation to prosecutionwitnesses if they would come forward and record their statements before Trial Court at place'S'---High Court directed that case be withdrawn from court at place 'S' and was transferred tocourt at place 'D'---Application was allowed in circumstances.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) – Section 526 – Transfer of Criminal Case on Grounds of Bias ---- Principles Governing Transfer Applications---Transfer of a criminal case from one court to another is a serious matter, particularly when sought on allegations of bias or prejudice against a judicial officer---Mere allegations, speculation, or conjecture regarding bias are insufficient to warrant a transfer---The applicant must demonstrate a real likelihood of bias, substantiated by cogent and credible evidence showing personal prejudice or predisposition affecting the judge's impartiality---The apprehension must be reasonable, not based on bald assertions or unsubstantiated claims. (b) Fair Trial – Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 ---- Right to Fair Trial and Judicial Impartiality---A fair trial is a constitutional right guaranteed under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973---Justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done---Allegations of bias must establish a reasonable apprehension of injustice, which cannot rely on subjective opinions or speculative fears---Transfer applications must be grounded in objective and provable facts rather than mere accusations. (c) Judicial Integrity and Public Confidence ---- Protection of Judicial Reputation Against Baseless Allegations---Unfounded allegations of bias against judicial officers undermine public confidence in the judicial system and damage the integrity of the judiciary---Courts must reject such allegations unless supported by clear evidence---The judiciary's sanctity and reputation must be safeguarded against frivolous attempts to cast aspersions on its impartiality. (d) Expeditious Disposal of Criminal Trials ---- Delay in Criminal Proceedings and Judicial Responsibility---Prolonged delays in concluding criminal trials undermine the administration of justice---Trial courts must ensure transparency, fairness, and expeditious disposal of cases without fear or favor---The superior courts are empowered to direct timely disposal of cases where delays are unreasonable or unjustified. -----Cited Case Law: Ms. Benazir Bhutto v. The President of Pakistan and Another (1992 SCMR 140) ----- Disposition: Transfer application dismissed in limine for lack of credible evidence supporting allegations of judicial bias. The trial court is directed to conclude the proceedings expeditiously, preferably within three months, ensuring transparency, fairness, and strict adherence to the law. A compliance report shall be submitted to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of the Lahore High Court.

Summary: The applicant filed an application under Section 526 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 for transfer of pre-arrest bail, whereby the applicant has sought withdrawal of the pre-arrest bail from the court of Mr. Muhammad Sajjad Hussain Khan, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tandlianwala, District Faisalabad and its transfer to any other court of competent jurisdiction at Faisalabad or any other Districts/Tehsil Courts.----------Section 528 (1-A) Cr.P.C. is related to the power of the Sessions Judge to withdraw cases and appeals. This power is conferred on the Sessions Judge presiding over the Court of Session.----------- Section 528 (1-A) Cr.P.C. provides that the power of transferring a criminal case from one criminal court to another in the Sessions division is to be exercised only if it is expedient for the end of justice. It does not require an elaborate discussion to hold that it is a judicial exercise of power. ------------Any time before the trial or hearing of the case or appeal, the Sessions Judge is also empowered to withdraw such cases. That power conferred on the Sessions Judge is meant in the interests of the litigant public and also to lessen the burden of the High Court, lest, for every transfer of a criminal case or appeal in a sessions division, the litigant public will always have to approach the High Court.--------------------------Since the application for bail in a case is part of the case, therefore, before the commencement of the trial, the application for bail pending before any Additional Sessions Judge can be recalled by the Sessions Judge from the cause list of learned Additional Sessions Judge, and he can hear the same himself or make it over to any other Additional Sessions Judge for hearing.--------------Similarly, before the commencement of trial, Sessions Judge may withdraw the case from cause list of learned Additional Sessions Judge and he can hear the same himself or make it over to any other Additional Sessions Judge for hearing; before hearing of the appeal, Sessions Judge may withdraw the appeal from cause list of learned Additional Sessions Judge and he can hear the same himself or make it over to any other Additional Sessions Judge for hearing. -----------However, if the trial has commenced, then the case cannot be withdrawn from the Additional Sessions Judge by the Sessions Judge, and, at that stage the application for bail pending before the Additional Sessions Judge can also not be withdrawn, and for that purpose, the relevant forum would be the High Court.-----------As in the instant case, since the facts and law are intertwined in the pre-arrest bail petition, the petitioner is certainly free to move the Sessions Judge under Section 528 Cr.P.C. for withdrawing and transferring the petition to another Additional Sessions Court so that it can be heard and decided.-------With these observations, petition stands disposed of. (a) Jurisdiction of Sessions Judge to Transfer Cases – Section 528 Cr.P.C: Under Section 528(1A) Cr.P.C., a Sessions Judge has the authority to recall and transfer cases or appeals from one Additional Sessions Judge to another within the same Sessions division before the commencement of trial or hearing of the appeal. The power under Section 528 Cr.P.C. is administrative in nature, aimed at the efficient distribution of cases within the Sessions Court. A Sessions Judge may exercise this power to ensure the ends of justice and facilitate fair trial proceedings. The Lahore High Court overruled the precedent set in PLD 2020 Lahore 382 (Naveed Hussain v. The State), which previously limited the Sessions Judge’s power in such matters. (b) High Court’s Power to Transfer Cases – Section 526 Cr.P.C: Section 526 Cr.P.C. empowers the High Court to transfer cases or appeals from one subordinate criminal court to another where it is expedient for the ends of justice. The High Court may exercise this power if it finds: That a fair and impartial inquiry or trial cannot be had. That a complex question of law is involved. That the transfer would serve the general convenience of parties or witnesses. The application for transfer under Section 526 Cr.P.C. must be supported by an affidavit and filed with prior notice to the Public Prosecutor. (c) Additional Sessions Judges and Their Jurisdiction – Sections 9 & 193 Cr.P.C: The Additional Sessions Judge is empowered to hear only those cases entrusted to him by the Sessions Judge as per Section 9 & 193 Cr.P.C.. The Sessions Judge retains the overriding authority to allocate, recall, or transfer cases for trial among Additional Sessions Judges. The Lahore High Court clarified that an Additional Sessions Judge is not subordinate to the Sessions Judge in judicial matters but remains under administrative oversight regarding case allocation. (d) Legal Principles Derived from Bail Proceedings – Section 528 Cr.P.C: Bail proceedings, though interlocutory in nature, form an integral part of the case and are thus subject to transfer under Section 528 Cr.P.C. The Lahore High Court emphasized that before the commencement of the trial, a Sessions Judge may withdraw bail petitions from an Additional Sessions Judge and assign them elsewhere in the same division. Once a trial has commenced, however, such transfer is restricted, and only the High Court can exercise transfer jurisdiction. (e) Constitutional and Legislative Intent: Article 37(d) of the Constitution of Pakistan ensures the right to expeditious and inexpensive justice, which is reinforced by legislative provisions enabling easier access to justice. The introduction of Sections 528 (1A & 1B) Cr.P.C. aligns with the principle of decentralized justice administration by granting Sessions Judges localized authority to manage caseload distribution effectively. ---Disposition: The transfer application was disposed of, allowing the petitioner to approach the Sessions Judge for relief under Section 528 Cr.P.C.. The Lahore High Court directed immediate circulation of this judgment to all Sessions Judges in Punjab for compliance and awareness.