ORDER : 1. By way of the present application under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants-accused have prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 08.06.2023 passed below Exh.140 in Sessions Case No. 14 of 2022. 2. Learned advocate for the applicants submits that the applicants are the original accused of Sessions Case No. 14 of 2022 and after FIR No. 11218009220024 of 2022 came to be registered before the Kamlabaug Police Station, Porbandar for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 504, 307 and 302 of the IPC, under Section 25(1-b)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act and under Section 135 of the G.P. Act, they all were arrested and a charge-sheet came to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Porbandar. That as the case was exclusively triable by the learned Sessions Court, the case was committed to the learned Sessions Court and is registered as Sessions Case No. 14 of 2022. That some of the present applicants have been released on regular bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and some have been released by the learned Sessions Court and all the applicants were directed not to enter into the limits of Porbandar District till the trial is over. That the charge against all the applicants is framed on 12.09.2022 and the matter is pending for evidence of the prosecution. That during pendency of the trial, the original complainant filed an application at Exh.140 on 11.05.2023 stating that the original accused be present before the learned trial Court and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Porbandar allowed the said application and passed the impugned order dated 08.06.2023 and directed the applicants-original accused to remain physically present before the Court on every adjournments. Learned advocate further submits that the complainant and his family members are attacking and assaulting the accused and their family members and FIR No. 11218009230480 of 2023 has been filed before Kamlabaug Police Station, Porbandar on 20.07.2023 and FIR No. 11218009230716 of 2023 was filed before the same police station on 26.10.2023 in this regard. Learned advocate for the applicants submits that the applicants-original accused apprehend that they will be attacked by the original complainant and his family members as untowards incidents have taken place in the Court premises on the date of the adjourments. 3. Learned advocate for the applicants submits that the applicants-original accused apprehend that they will be attacked by the original complainant and his family members as untowards incidents have taken place in the Court premises on the date of the adjourments. 3. In support of his submissions, learned advocate for the applicants has relied upon the decision rendered in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Dr. Praful B. Desai, AIR 2003 SC 2053 and has submitted that Section 273 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for the evidence to be recorded in the presence of the accused or his pleader. That the applicants are ready and willing to remain present before the Court through their advocates and conduct the matter regularly as are also willing to remain present through video conference and have also no intention to delay the trial. Moreover, a large number of witnesses have been examined and the trial is likely to conclude within a short span of time. That the learned Trial Court has not considered that this Court has specifically ordered the applicants not to enter Porbandar District as there was a possibility of some untoward incident taking place and has not considered the report of the Investigating Officer. The impugned order is absolutely perverse and unjustified and has been passed without considering the actual circumstances though brought on record by the report of the Investigating Officer and hence, the present application may be allowed and the impugned order may be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned APP Mr. Bhargav Pandya for the respondent-State submits that the Police Inspector, Kamlabaug Police Station had given an application being outward No. 2996 of 2023 dated 23.07.2023 to the learned Trial Court stating that during the pendency of the trial on the date of adjournments, the parties remained present along with about 20 to 25 persons and untoward incidents have taken place and the complainant of Sessions Case No. 14 of 2022 has threatened the families of the original accused and Chapter Case No. 225 of 2023 has been registered on 06.07.2023 and FIR No. 11218009230480 of 2023 has been registered with Kamlabaug Police Station on 20.07.2023. That there was a possibility of a serious offence taking place and hence, the Police Inspector requested the learned Trial Court to keep the accused present through video conferencing during the trial. That there was a possibility of a serious offence taking place and hence, the Police Inspector requested the learned Trial Court to keep the accused present through video conferencing during the trial. Learned APP further submits that the learned Trial Court has kept the application for hearing and as there is a huge possibility of some untoward incident and serious offence taking place, necessary orders may be passed in the interest of justice. 5. In the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Dr. Praful B. Desai (supra) relied upon by the learned advocate for the applicants-original accused, the Apex Court has observed in Para-19 as under: “19. At this stage we must deal with a submission made by Mr. Sundaram. It was submitted that videoconferencing could not be allowed as the rights of an accused, under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, cannot be subjected to a procedure involving “virtual reality.” Such an argument displays ignorance of the concept of virtual reality and also of video conferencing Virtual reality is a state where one is made to feel, hear or imagine what does not really exists. In virtual reality one can be made to feel cold when one is sitting in a hot room, one can be made to hear the sound of ocean when one is sitting in the mountains, one can be made to imagine that he is taking part in a Grand Prix race whilst one is relaxing on one sofa etc. Video conferencing has nothing to do with virtual reality. Advances in science and technology have now, so to say, shrunk the world. They now enable one to see and hear events, taking place far away, as they are actually taking place. To take an example today one does not need to go to South Africa to watch World Cup matches. One can watch the game, live as it is going on, on one's TV. If a person is sitting in the stadium and watching the match, the match is being played in his sight presence and he/she is in the presence of the players. When a person is sitting in his drawing-room and watching the match on TV, it cannot be said that he is in presence of the players but at the same time, in a broad sense, it can be said that the match is being played in his presence. When a person is sitting in his drawing-room and watching the match on TV, it cannot be said that he is in presence of the players but at the same time, in a broad sense, it can be said that the match is being played in his presence. Both the persons sitting in the stadium and the person in the drawing-room, are watching what is actually happening as it is happening. This is not virtual reality, it is actual reality. One is actually seeing and hearing what is happening. Video conferencing is an advancement in science and technology which permits one to see, hear and talk with someone far away, with the same facility and ease as if he is present before you i.e. in your presence. In fact he/she is present before you on a screen. Except for touching one can see, hear and observe as if the party is in the same room. In video conferencing both parties are in presence of each other. The submissions of respondents counsel are akin to an argument that a person seeing through binoculars or telescope is not actually seeing what is happening. It is akin to submitting that a person seen through binoculars or telescope is not in the “presence” of the person observing. Thus it is clear that so long as the accused and/or his pleader are present when evidence is recorded by video conferencing that evidence is being recorded in the “presence” of the accused and would thus fully meet the requirements of Section 273, Criminal Procedure Code. Recording of such evidence would be as per “procedure established by law.” Recording of evidence by video conferencing also satisfies the object of providing in Section 273, that evidence be recorded in the presence of the accused. The accused and his pleader can see the witness as clearly as if the witness was actually sitting before them. In fact the accused may be able to see the witness better than he may have been able to if he was sitting in the dock in a crowded Court room. They can observe his or her demeanour. In fact the facility to play back would enable better observation of demeanour. They can hear and rehear the deposition of the witness. The accused would be able to instruct his pleader immediately and thus cross-examination of the witness is as effective, if not better. They can observe his or her demeanour. In fact the facility to play back would enable better observation of demeanour. They can hear and rehear the deposition of the witness. The accused would be able to instruct his pleader immediately and thus cross-examination of the witness is as effective, if not better. The facility of play back would give an added advantage whilst cross-examining the witness. The witness can be confronted with documents or other material or statement in the same manner as if he/she was in Court. All these objects would be fully met when evidence is recorded by video conferencing. Thus no prejudice, of whatsoever nature, is caused to the accused.” 6. Section-205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for dispensation of personal attendance of the accused and the said section reads as under: “205. Magistrate may dispense with personal attendance of accused: (1) Whenever a Magistrate issues a summons, he may, if he sees reason so to do, dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and permit him to appear by his pleader. (2) But the Magistrate inquiring into or trying the case may, in his discretion, at any stage of proceedings, direct the personal attendance of the accused, and, if necessary, enforce such attendance in the manner hereinabove provided.” 6.1. Section-273 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for evidence to be taken in presence of accused and the said section reads as under: “273. Evidence to be taken in presence of accused: Except as otherwise expressly provided all evidence taken in the course of the trial or other proceeding shall be taken in the presence of the accused, or, when his personal attendance is dispensed with, in the presence of his pleader, or as the case may be, through the medium of Electronic Video Linkage when the court or its own motion or on an application so directs in the interests of justice: Provided that where the evidence of a woman below the age of eighteen years who is alleged to have been subjected to rape or any other sexual offence is to be recorded, the court may take appropriate measures to ensure that such woman is not confronted by the accused while at the same time ensuring the right of cross-examination of the accused.” 6.2. Section-317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for provision for inquiries and trial being held in the absence of accused in certain case and the said section reads as under: “317. Provision for inquiries and trial being held in the absence of accused in certain case: (1) at any stage of inquiry and trial under this Code, if the Judge or Magistrate is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded, that the personal attendance of the accused before the Court is not necessary in the interests of justice, or that the accused persistently disturbs the proceedings in Court, the Judge or Magistrate may, if the accused is represented by a pleader, dispense with his attendance and proceed with such inquiry or trial in his absence, and may, at any subsequent stage of the proceedings, direct the personal attendance of such accused. (2) if the accused in any such case is not represented by a pleader, or if the Judge or Magistrate considers, his personal attendance necessary, he may, if he thinks fit and for reasons to be recorded by him, either adjourn such inquiry or trial, or order that the case of such accused be taken up or tried separately.” 7. The Apex Court, in the case of M/s. Bhaskar Industries Ltd. vs. M/s. Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Ltd. and Others in Criminal Appeal No. 858 of 2001 (Unreported decision), has held as under: “The normal rule is that the evidence shall be taken in the presence of the accused. However, even in the absence of the accused such evidence can be taken but then his counsel must be present in the court, provided he has been granted exemption from attending the court. The concern of the criminal court should primarily be the administration of criminal justice. For that purpose the proceedings of the court in the case should register progress. Presence of the accused in the court is not for marking his attendance just for the sake of seeing him in the court. It is to enable the court to proceed with the trial. If the progress of the trial can be achieved even in the absence of the accused the court can certainly take into account the magnitude of the sufferings which a particular accused person may have to bear with in order to make himself present in the court in that particular case.” 8. If the progress of the trial can be achieved even in the absence of the accused the court can certainly take into account the magnitude of the sufferings which a particular accused person may have to bear with in order to make himself present in the court in that particular case.” 8. In view of the above, when the charge has been framed and a large part of the evidence has been recorded during trial and as the presence of the accused can be dispensed with, especially, when this Court has granted bail to the applicants-original accused on condition not to enter Porbandar District till the trial is over, the learned Sessions Court ought to have considered the report of the Police Inspector, Kamlabaug Police Station, more particularly, when two untoward incidents have already been reported where the original complainant has threatened the friends or family members of the applicants. That the learned Trial Court ought to have considered that no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution and the identification of the applicants-original accused can be undertaken by the video conferencing. It is pertinent to note that the applicants have been granted bail on condition not to enter Porbandar District till the trial is over and are ready and willing to appear through video conferencing before the learned Trial Court. 9. Having heard learned advocates at length and considering the averments made in the application and the submission advanced by the learned advocate for the applicants, this Court deems fit that the present application requires consideration and accordingly, is allowed. 10. The impugned order dated 08.06.2023 passed below Exh.140 in Sessions Case No. 14 of 2022 is hereby quashed and set aside. The applicants-original accused are permitted to appear before the concerned Trial Court through video conferencing and the learned advocates for the applicants-original accused will remain physically present before the learned Trial Court. As the applicants-original are permitted to appear through video conferencing, they will not dispute their identity and will not seek unnecessary adjournments but will fully cooperate in the trial of the case. As the applicants-original are permitted to appear through video conferencing, they will not dispute their identity and will not seek unnecessary adjournments but will fully cooperate in the trial of the case. That as the physical presence of the applicants-original accused will be required at the time of recording their further statements, the concerned Investigating Officer is hereby directed to make necessary arrangements in the limits of Porbandar District for their safe appearance to and fro to the concerned Court premises and to take necessary precautions ensure that no untoward incident occurs on the date of recording the further statements. Rule made absolute.