The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that allegations of judicial bias, unsupported by concrete evidence, cannot justify transfer of trial when the court is actively complying with statutory mandates for expeditious justice. This judgment reinforces the principle that procedural efficiency under the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, must not be undermined by speculative claims of prejudice.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners sought transfer of a criminal trial pending before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ujjain, alleging bias and haste in proceedings. They contended that the trial court was unfairly advancing the case while ignoring their request to stay proceedings pending the outcome of a Supreme Court SLP challenging the quashing of prosecution against two co-accused.
Procedural History
- 2019: Criminal complaint filed in relation to alleged fraudulent sale-deed transactions
- 2023: Trial commenced in Sessions Trial No. 213/2023
- 11.09.2025: Prosecution evidence began
- 13.11.2025: Petitioners filed application for stay of trial, undecided by trial court
- 20.11.2025: Madhya Pradesh High Court granted temporary stay in another matter (M.Cr.C. 53406/2025), but trial court proceeded on 10.12.2025
- 13.01.2026: Prosecution closed evidence without examining witness Ali Mohammed Kala Bhai Wala
- 19.01.2026: Trial court allowed petitioners’ application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. (now Section 348 BNSS, 2023) to examine witness Akshay Singh
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought transfer of the trial to another court, alleging partiality, undue haste, and denial of fair opportunity to present evidence.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether allegations of judicial bias, unsupported by tangible evidence of prejudice, can justify transfer of trial under Section 447 read with Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, when the trial court is actively adhering to statutory mandates for expeditious disposal.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners argued that the trial court exhibited bias by:
- Ignoring their application for stay despite repeated oral requests
- Failing to issue summons to witness Ali Mohammed Kala Bhai Wala despite directing it
- Closing prosecution evidence prematurely, thereby prejudicing their defense
- Proceeding with undue haste, violating the right to fair trial under Article 21 They relied on the pendency of the SLP before the Supreme Court as grounds for a stay, asserting that joint trial of co-accused was essential for justice.
For the Respondent/State
The State and other respondents countered that:
- No stay order had been issued by the Supreme Court in the SLP, so the trial court was legally bound to proceed
- The prosecutor has absolute discretion to decide which witnesses to examine
- The trial court had permitted examination of a defense witness under Section 348 BNSS, demonstrating impartiality
- The court was complying with the Supreme Court’s directive in CBI v. Mir Usman and State of U.P. v. Shambhunath Singh to avoid unnecessary adjournments
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the statutory framework under Section 346 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (successor to Section 309 Cr.P.C.), which mandates continuous and expeditious trial. It emphasized that the judiciary must balance the rights of the accused with the public interest in timely justice.
"We make it abundantly clear that if a witness is present in court he must be examined on that day. The court must know that most of the witnesses could attend the court only at heavy cost to them, after keeping aside their own avocation. Certainly they incur suffering and loss of income."
The Court cited CBI v. Mir Usman and Doongar Singh v. State of Rajasthan to underscore that repeated adjournments undermine public confidence and victim rights. It held that the trial court’s conduct - allowing defense witnesses, rejecting unfounded stay requests, and proceeding on merits - demonstrated adherence to law, not bias.
The Court rejected the notion that failure to examine a prosecution witness automatically implies prejudice. The prosecutor’s discretion to close evidence is well-established, and no violation of natural justice occurred when the defense was permitted to call its own witness.
The Court further noted that allegations of bias require more than suspicion - they demand demonstrable conduct indicating partiality. Mere procedural efficiency, even if perceived as haste, cannot be equated with bias.
The Verdict
The petitioners’ application was dismissed. The Court held that no inference of bias was established, and the trial court’s conduct was fully compliant with Section 346 BNSS and Supreme Court directives. Transfer of trial was denied as there was no basis to conclude that the accused would suffer miscarriage of justice.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Trial Speed Is Not Bias
- Practitioners must distinguish between lawful expediency and judicial partiality
- Courts are empowered - and obligated - to avoid unnecessary adjournments under Section 346 BNSS
- Allegations of bias based solely on the pace of trial will not succeed without evidence of prejudicial conduct
Prosecutor’s Discretion in Witness Examination Is Absolute
- The prosecution retains discretion to decide which witnesses to examine, even if defense requests otherwise
- Failure to examine a prosecution witness does not invalidate proceedings unless it prejudices the defense
- Defense must actively invoke Section 348 BNSS to summon witnesses if prosecution declines
Stay Orders Must Be Explicit to Halt Trial
- Pending SLPs do not automatically stay trial proceedings unless the Supreme Court issues a specific stay
- Trial courts must proceed unless restrained by a valid order
- Petitioners seeking stay must obtain explicit judicial orders, not rely on the pendency of appeals
