The Delhi High Court dismissed petitions by Balbir Chand Tiwari and Sukhmohinder Singh Sandhu seeking transfer of their CBI trial, calling their apprehension “unfounded, specious and misplaced” and refusing to shift the long-pending case to another court.
The Delhi High Court, dismissed two petitions filed by Balbir Chand Tiwari and Sukhmohinder Singh Sandhu seeking transfer of their ongoing trial from the Special CBI Court.
Both petitioners are facing trial in Sessions Case No. 02/2019, titled “Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Sumedh Singh Saini & others”, which arises out of RC No. 2(S)/1994-SIU.V/SIC.
The case is currently at the final arguments stage.
Justice Manoj Jain heard the matter.
The dispute began when the earlier presiding judge of the trial court had, on 23 September 2025, asked the parties to first argue only on the issue of sanction under Section 197 CrPC. After the new judge took charge, the matter was again fixed for sanction arguments on 19 December 2025.
However, on 7 January 2026, the trial court decided that the final arguments should be heard together both on sanction and on merits.
This change in approach created “some disquiet and fear in the minds of the petitioners”, who felt that there was an “unexplained overturning of the previous order”.
The petitioners said that they had expected the arguments to be heard in a “structured and phased manner”, and that the sudden change caused “uncertainty and apprehension”.
They moved a transfer application before the Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (PC Act), CBI, Rouse Avenue Courts. Their application was rejected on 17 March 2026. They then challenged this order before the High Court.
Senior advocates appearing for the petitioners told the court that their clients had the highest respect for the judiciary and were not making any allegations against the presiding judge. They argued that the deviation in the manner of hearing had made the petitioners apprehensive.
Justice Manoj Jain rejected this line of reasoning, observing that the apprehension was “unfounded, specious and misplaced”.
The court said that the mere fact that the trial judge now wanted to hear full and combined final arguments “would not, by itself, mean anything significant or suggestive of any bias or predetermination of the outcome”.
The judge added that how a trial court chooses to hear final arguments is an internal matter,
“Such inconsequential aspects about the manner in which the learned Trial Court desires to hear final arguments, are better left to its wisdom and discretion.”
The court also noted that the issue of sanction would remain the same, “whether it is answered in piecemeal or in a combined manner”.
The High Court emphasised that the case was very old, originally transferred from Haryana to Delhi, and the judge was already midway through final arguments. Therefore, there was “no justifiable reason” to transfer the matter.
The petitioners relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Kanaklata v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2015) 6 SCC 617, arguing that even certain observations by a court could create reasonable apprehension. Justice Jain explained that the situation in that case was completely different.
The earlier matter involved strong observations regarding misuse of the SC/ST Act that could have reasonably affected the complainant’s confidence. In contrast, the present case involved no such troubling circumstances.
ALSO READ: Rabri Devi Case Transfer Row: Delhi Court Seeks Vishal Gogne’s Response
The court further remarked that an order of transfer has a “depressing, demoralizing and disconsolate impact” on a judge. Because of this, transfer powers must be used “sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations”.
The judge noted that the petitioners were hypersensitive, had misread the ‘order and mind of the court, and had “jumped to imaginary and unwarranted conclusion”.
Finally, the High Court concluded that there was “no illegality” in the order rejecting the transfer request. It dismissed both petitions.
Case Title: Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Sumedh Singh Saini & others