Exemption from personal appearance not an absolute right, says High Court
An accused cannot claim an absolute right to exemption from personal appearance merely because he is on bail, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled. Upholding conditions imposed by a trial court in a default bail case, the court emphasised that exemptions must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, with judicial discretion applied according to the circumstances.
Justice Sandeep Moudgil said, “An accused cannot as a matter of right seek exemption from personal appearance. The court has to consider the grounds for exemption, and under facts and circumstances of the case, has to exercise its discretion judiciously and decide whether in that particular case, the accused may be granted exemption from personal appearance. Mere fact that he is on bail does not give him an absolute right for personal exemption.”
The case arose from an FIR registered under the NDPS Act involving the recovery of 18.88 kg of poppy husk. The petitioner secured default bail after the police failed to file a chargesheet within the prescribed period, even after extensions were granted.
The trial court imposed two specific conditions: no application seeking exemption from personal appearance would be entertained and the prosecution could seek cancellation of bail. The petitioner contended that these conditions were arbitrary, particularly the blanket restriction on seeking exemption from appearance, as unforeseen circumstances could prevent attendance.
Drawing a distinction between ordinary bail conditions and those under special laws like the NDPS Act, Justice Moudgil observed: “Classification of offences under special Acts — NDPS etc — which apply over and above the ordinary bail conditions, require the court to record its satisfaction that the accused might not be guilty of the offence and that upon release not likely to commit any offence.”
He added that courts must assess the material on record, including the nature of the offence, the accused's likelihood of cooperating with the investigation, and their potential to abscond, even in serious cases such as murder, kidnapping or rape.
Admonishing the police for their repeated failure to file the chargesheet within statutory timelines, the court described their approach as "lackadaisical." Justice Moudgil noted, “The police authorities while having lackadaisical approach have failed to file challan twice despite given extension of time of one month.”
He further emphasised that offences like drug peddling cannot be treated leniently due to their societal impact. Dismissing the petition, the court upheld the trial court's conditions, asserting: “Since the offence involved is grievous in nature and drug peddling, being the rising concern for the society at large cannot be dealt with leniently. Therefore, in the light of facts, the court does not find any cogent reason to interfere with the order of the trial court.”
