see also : Section 177 - CrPC
The apprehension of not getting a fair and impartial enquiry or trial is required to be reasonable and not imaginary, based upon conjectures and surmises. No universal or hard-and-fast rule can be prescribed for deciding a transfer petition, which will always have to be decided on the facts of each case. Convenience of a party may be one of the relevant considerations but cannot override all other considerations such as the availability of witnesses exclusively at the original place, making it virtually impossible to continue with the trial at the place of transfer, and progress of which would naturally be impeded for that reason at the transferred place of trial. The convenience of the parties does not mean the convenience of the petitioner alone who approaches the court on misconceived notions of apprehension. Convenience for the purposes of transfer means the convenience of the prosecution, other accused, the witnesses and the larger interest of the society. The charge-sheet in FIR No. 351 of 2016 reveals that of the 40 witnesses, the petitioner alone is from Mumbai, two are from Ghaziabad, and one is from Noida. The charge-sheet of FIR No. 1742 of 2016 is not on record. A reasonable presumption can be drawn that the position would be similar in the same also.
Harita Sunil Parab v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 6 SCC 358
Criminal trial – Transfer - Prosecution witnesses are situated in Delhi - 12 official witnesses are serving in New Delhi - If the Transfer Petition is allowed, they would be required to travel from New Delhi to Allahabad (Prayagraj), which would cause hinderance in performing their official duties – Transfer petition, dismissed.
Early conclusion of the trial becomes much more difficult involving more expenses for the prosecution by it having to bear travelling expenses of official and non-official witnesses and all of which ultimately causes the trial to linger on for years.
Mrudul M. Damle v. CBI [Mrudul M. Damle v. CBI, (2012) 5 SCC 706]