Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 485 (KER)

Abhil C. R S/o Renjith Kumar v. State Of Kerala

2025-03-06

V.G.ARUN

body2025
ORDER : Petitioner is the 6 th accused in S.C. No.1490 of 2023 on the files of the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ernakulam. The case originated from Crime No.382 of 2023 registered at the Thrikkakara Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). 2. The petitioner was granted bail by this Court as per order dated 30.09.2023. Subsequently, at the request of the petitioner, trial court granted permission to travel to the United Kingdom for pursuing his studies in M.Sc. Digital Marketing at the Coventry University, U.K. The case was posted on 12.03.2024 for framing of charge and the petitioner being absent, trial court framed and read over charges to the other accused. The case was then posted to 16.03.2024 for framing charges against the petitioner. Even though, petitioner appeared through Video Conferencing mode on that day, the charge was not read over to him. The charge was not read over on the subsequent dates also, as the petitioner was not present in person. The court also proceeded to issue non-bailable warrant against the petitioner due to his absence. This Crl.M.C is hence filed, seeking the following reliefs: “i) Quash the order/proceedings dated 05-07-2024 in Sessions Case No. 1490/2023 of Court of Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ernakulam issuing a non-bailable warrant against the petitioner and the notice to his sureties. ii) Permit the petitioner to appear through VC for the remaining proceedings, in Sessions Case No. 1490/2023 of Court of Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ernakulam including trial, and direct the trial court to accept his virtual presence for all required hearings. ?) Declare that the bail bond of the petitioner stands reinstated, as if no order of cancellation or forfeiture of bail bond was issued in Sessions Case No. 1490/2023 of Court of Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ernakulam.” 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, since his client was present through virtual mode on 16.03.2024, court could have read over the charges and recorded his plea. According to the learned Counsel the petitioner can even be allowed to appear through Counsel for the purpose of recording his plea. In support of this contention reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. Bhiwani Denim And Apparels Ltd [ 2001 (7) SCC 401 ] with specific reference to paragraph Nos.17 and 18 therein. In support of this contention reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. Bhiwani Denim And Apparels Ltd [ 2001 (7) SCC 401 ] with specific reference to paragraph Nos.17 and 18 therein. It is submitted that the duration of petitioner’s M.Sc. Course is for one more year and he will not be able to return to India until then. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that if the petitioner was desirous of his plea being recorded through virtual mode, he should have made an application for that purpose. The court cannot be faulted for not framing the charge and recording petitioner’s plea in the absence of an application. 5. With the introduction of the Video Conferencing Rules, it is now possible to permit appearance of accused through virtual mode in almost all stages of a case. The very purpose of the Video Conferencing Rules is to make access to justice easier for the parties. Hence, for the purpose of reading over the charge and recording the plea, accused can be permitted to appear through virtual mode. Needles to say, if the accused wants to appear through virtual mode he should submit appropriate application. As contended by the Counsel for the petitioner, court can even allow the Counsel to make the plea on behalf of the accused. Being contextually relevant paragraph No.17 of the judgment in Bhaskar Industries Ltd. (supra) is extracted hereunder: “Thus, in appropriate cases the Magistrate can allow an accused to make even the first appearance through a Counsel. The Magistrate is empowered to record the plea of the accused even when his Counsel makes such plea on behalf of the accused in a case where the personal appearance of the accused is dispensed with. S.317 of the Code has to be viewed in the above perspective as it empowers the court to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused (provided he is represented by a Counsel in that case) even for proceeding with the further steps in the case. S.317 of the Code has to be viewed in the above perspective as it empowers the court to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused (provided he is represented by a Counsel in that case) even for proceeding with the further steps in the case. However, one precaution which the court should take in such a situation is that the said benefit need be granted only to an accused who gives an undertaking to the satisfaction of the court that he would not dispute his identity as the particular accused in the case, and that a Counsel on his behalf would be present in court and that he has no objection in taking evidence in his absence. This precaution is necessary for the further progress of the proceeding including examination of the witnesses.” 6. Learned Public Prosecutor points out that the above paragraph contains a rider that, when plea is recorded through Counsel, the accused should undertake that he will not dispute his identity and that the Counsel will be present on his behalf. 7. Even though the question here is whether permission can be granted to the Counsel for making the plea on behalf of the accused, if the proceedings are to be continued in the absence of the petitioner, he will have to give an undertaking that the identity will not be disputed and his Counsel will be present in court throughout. If the petitioner submits appropriate application containing the undertaking with a request to appear through video conferencing mode, or to record his plea through his Counsel, court shall allow one of the modes, by imposing appropriate conditions. 8. In view of the directions issued above, proceedings initiated against the sureties shall be closed.The Crl.M.C is accordingly disposed of.