Right to exemption from personal appearance not absolute: HC

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, while upholding conditions imposed by a trial court in a default bail case. The court asserted that such exemptions were required to be considered on a case-by-case basis, with judicial discretion exercised based on the circumstances.

Justice Sandeep Moudgil asserted, “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 has its genesis in an FIR registered under the provisions of the NDPS Act, involving the recovery of 18.88 kg of poppy husk. The petitioner secured default bail after the police failed to file the chargesheet within the prescribed period, despite being granted extensions.

The Bench, during the course of hearing, was told that the trial court imposed two specific conditions: No application seeking exemption from personal appearance would be entertained and that the prosecution would have the liberty to seek cancellation of bail.

The petitioner argued that these conditions were arbitrary and unreasonable, particularly the blanket restriction on seeking exemption from appearance, as unforeseen circumstances could arise preventing attendance.

Drawing a distinction between ordinary bail conditions and those imposed under special laws like the NDPS Act, Justice Moudgil observed, “Classification of offences under special Acts, like NDPS Act, 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.”

Justice Moudgil added a court, as such, was required to assess the material on record such as the nature of the offence, likelihood of the accused co-operating with the investigation, not fleeing from justice even in serious offences such as murder, kidnapping and rape in matters where bail was sought.

Justice Moudgil did not mince words in admonishing the police for failing to file the challan within the extended period. The court termed the police’s conduct as “lackadaisical,” while referring to its repeated failure to meet statutory timelines. “The police authorities while having lackadaisical approach have failed to file challan twice despite given extension of time of one month,” the court added.

Justice Moudgil also asserted that offences, such as drug peddling, could not be treated with leniency given the societal impact. Dismissing the petition, the court upheld the trial court’s conditions while stating, “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.”