ORDER 1. The revision petitioner/accused No. 6 is before this Court under Sec. 397 r/w. Sec. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order dated 13-7-2006 made in Special C. C. No. 253/2004 on the file of XXI Addl. City Civil Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Bangalore City. 2. The petitioner/accused is represented by Sri S. Nagaraju. The respondent is represented by Sri Ashok Haranahalli. 3. Heard arguments. 4. On 13-7-2006, the Advocate for the present petitioner/accused had filed an application under Sec. 317 of Cr. P. C., for personal exemption of the accused on the ground that he sustained injuries in the accident that occurred on 8-7-2006 and taking treatment. But, the learned trial Judge cancelled the bail of accused No. 6 and ordered to register a Miscellaneous Case against the surety for recovery of bond amount. The accused Nos. 1 to 5, who were present, pleaded not guilty. The learned trial Judge framed charge as against accused Nos. 1 to 5 and directed the Office to split up the case as against accused No. 6 and issue N. B. W. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court, insofar as rejection of exemption application, cancellation of bail and recovery of bond amount. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the decision of the Delhi High Court reported in 1985 Cri LJ 467 (S. Nihal Singh and others v. Arjun Das), on the point that the personal appearance of accused for recording such plea cannot be held to be necessary by virtue of Section 252. 6. The learned Counsel for the respondent/C. B. I. submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order. 7. On 8-12-2006 when the present accused appeared before the Court voluntarily he was taken to custody and since then he is in judicial custody. 8. Since the accused met with an accident and sustained injuries, the trial Court could have taken a lenient view in allowing the exemption application. 9. Admittedly, when the case was called on 7-7-2006, the present revision petitioner/accused was present, but accused Nos. 3 and 5 were absent and the case was adjourned to 13-7-2007, on which date he could not appear before the Court on account of injuries sustained in the accident. The impugned order rejecting the exemption application and consequently cancelling the bail is bad in law. 10. 3 and 5 were absent and the case was adjourned to 13-7-2007, on which date he could not appear before the Court on account of injuries sustained in the accident. The impugned order rejecting the exemption application and consequently cancelling the bail is bad in law. 10. The revision petitioner/accused has rightly challenged the impugned order dated 13-7-2006, insofar as rejection of application for personal exemption application and cancellation of bail. The impugned order is not sustainable. 11. In the result, the Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 13-7-2006 made in Spl. C. C. No. 253/2004 on the file of XXI Addl. City Civil Session Judge and Special Judge at Bangalore City, insofar as cancelling the bail and registering case against the surety for recovery of bond amount is set aside. Consequently, the revision petitioner is released on previous bail bond. The revision petitioner/accused No. 6 shall be set at liberty forthwith. 12. Petition allowed.