Kerala HC: Accused Exempted From Personal Appearance including accused residing abroad Can Answer Questions Virtually Or In Writing as per S.351 BNSS

 In Basavaraj R.Patil and others v. State of

Karnataka and others [(2000) 8 SCC 740], while

considering the question whether the accused can be

permitted to file his written submissions under Section

313 of the Cr. P.C, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as

follows:

“23. Section 243(1) of the Code enables the accused,

who is involved in the trial of warrant case instituted on

police report, to put in any written statement. When any

such statement is filed the Court is obliged to make it part

of the record of the case. Even if such case is not instituted

on police report the accused has the same right (vide

Section 247). Even the accused involved in offences

exclusively triable by the Court of sessions can also exercise

such a right to put in written statements [Section 233(2) of

the Code]. It is common knowledge that most of such

written statements, if not all, are prepared by the

counsel of the accused. If such written statements can

be treated as statements directly emanating from the

accused, hook, line and sinker, why not the answers

given by him in the manner set out hereinafter, in

special contingencies, be afforded the same worth.

24. We think that a pragmatic and humanistic

approach is warranted in regard to such special exigencies.

The word shall in clause (b) to Section 313(1) of the Code is

to be interpreted as obligatory on the Court and it should be

complied with when it is for the benefit of the accused. But

if it works to his great prejudice and disadvantage the

Court should, in appropriate cases, e.g., if the accused

satisfies the court that he is unable to reach the venue

of the court, except by bearing huge expenditure or

that he is unable to travel the long journey due to

physical incapacity or some such other hardship

relieve him of such hardship and at the same time

adopt a measure to comply with the requirements in

Section 313 of the Code in a substantial manner. How

this could be achieved?

25. If the accused (who is already exempted from

personally appearing in the Court) makes an application to

the court praying that he may be allowed to answer the

questions without making his physical presence in court on

account of justifying exigency the court can pass

appropriate orders thereon, provided such application is

accompanied by an affidavit sworn to by the accused himself

containing the following matters: (a) A narration of facts to

satisfy the court of his real difficulties to be physically

present in court for giving such answers. (b) An assurance

that no prejudice would be caused to him, in any manner, by

dispensing with his personal presence during such

questioning. (c) An undertaking that he would not raise any

grievance on that score at any stage of the case.

26. If the court is satisfied of the genuineness of

the statements made by the accused in the said

application and affidavit it is open to the court to

supply the questionnaire to his advocate (containing

the questions which the court might put to him under

Section 313 of the Code) and fix the time within which

the same has to be returned duly answered by the

accused together with a properly authenticated

affidavit that those answers were given by the accused

himself. He should affix his signature on all the sheets

of the answered questionnaire. However, if he does not

wish to give any answer to any of the questions he is free to

indicate that fact at the appropriate place in the

questionnaire [as a matter of precaution the Court may keep

photocopy or carbon copy of the questionnaire before it is

supplied to the accused for answers]. If the accused fails to

return the questionnaire duly answered as aforesaid within

the time or extended time granted by the court, he shall

forfeit his right to seek personal exemption from court

during such questioning.

27. In our opinion, if the above course is adopted in

exceptional exigency it would not violate the legislative

intent envisaged in Section 313 of the Code.” {Para 6}

15. In light of the above discussions, I don't find any

legal impediment in permitting the petitioner to answer

the questions under Section 351 BNSS either by adopting

the procedure laid down in Section 351 (5) BNSS and

Basavaraj R.Patil’s case or by getting his answers

recorded via the electronic video linkage under the

Linkage Rules and getting the statement signed as per

the procedure under Rule 8 (16) of the Rules. It would be

up to the petitioner to choose the method.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRL.MC NO. 9203 OF 2025

RAMESHAN Vs  STATE OF KERALA,

PRESENT

 MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2025.

Citation: 2025:KER:77918.

Print Page

Important Supreme Court Judgments on bail(Part 3)

 

1) Supreme Court: Participation in protest and expression of strong views is not violation of bail conditions-bail is not liable to be cancelled on that ground

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1994 OF 2024

A.DURAIMURUGAN PANDIYAN SATTAI @ DURAIMURUGAN  VS. STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ANR.

Dated: April 08, 2024.

https://www.lawweb.in/2024/06/supreme-court-participation-in-protest.html

Print Page

Whether the court can give personal exemption to accused if he has not given the bail?

Further, the observation that there is no provision for granting exemption from personal appearance prior to obtaining bail, is not correct, as the power to grant exemption from personal appearance under the Code.{ Section 205 of the Code. Also see, Section 317 of the Code}  should not be read in a restrictive manner as applicable only after the accused has been granted bail. This Court in Maneka Sanjay Gandhi and Another v. Rani Jethmalani (1979) 4 SCC 167. held that the power to grant exemption from personal appearance should be exercised liberally, when facts and circumstances require such exemption. See also, Puneet Dalmia v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad, (2020) 12 SCC 695. Section 205 states that the Magistrate, exercising his discretion, may dispense

with the personal attendance of the accused while issuing summons, and allow them to appear through their pleader. While provisions of the Code are considered to be exhaustive, cases arise where the Code is silent and the court has to make such order as the ends of justice require. In such cases, the criminal court must act on the principle, that every procedure which is just and fair, is understood as permissible, till it is shown to be expressly or impliedly prohibited by law. See, Popular Muthiah v. State Represented by Inspector of Police (2006) 7 SCC 296 and earlier judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Rahim Sheikh (1923) 50 Cal 872, 875.{Para 47}

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024

SHARIF AHMED AND ANOTHER Vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER

Author: SANJIV KHANNA, J.

Dated: MAY 01, 2024.

Citation: 2024 INSC 363.

Print Page

Whether accused can claim blanket exemption from personal appearance in dishonour of cheque case?

Learned counsel has referred to a decision of this Court in the case of M/s Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. M/s Bhiwani Denim Apparels Ltd.: (2001) 7 SCC 401. The said decision was cited before the High Court too and the High Court has rightly indicated that therein, this Court was not dealing with a claim for blanket exemption from personal appearance.

Having gone through the said decision, we are satisfied that the observations therein essentially co-relate with the facts of the said case. Moreover, even while observing that in appropriate cases the Magistrate can allow an accused to make even the first appearance through a counsel, this Court has also indicated that such discretion needs to be exercised only in rare instances and there ought to be good reasons for dispensing with the presence.

It is difficult to appreciate that in the case of the present nature, the petitioners seek to avoid appearance even once in terms of the order of the learned Sessions Judge.

We find no reason to entertain this petition.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 

Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 3382/2022

  MAHESH KUMAR KEJRIWAL & ANR. Vs BHANUJ JINDAL & ANR.

Coram: DINESH MAHESHWARI; ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.

Dated: 18-04-2022

Print Page

Whether the order passed by the court in an application for grant of personal exemption to accused operates as res judicata or estoppel?

Equally unsustainable is the finding of the learned Magistrate that the petitioner was not entitled to apply for exemption from personal appearance again, since his earlier application with a similar prayer was rejected and the said order had become final. It is elementary that in the case of applications for exemption from personal attendance of the accused in the Court be it under Section 205(1) or Section 317 of the Code neither the rule of estoppel nor the principles of res judicata will apply. As noticed earlier, exemption from personal appearance can be granted at the discretion of the Court at any stage of an enquiry or trial. Therefore, the application filed by the petitioner could not have been rejected on the ground that a similar application filed by him was dismissed earlier.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA

Crl. M.C. No. 2493 of 2004

Decided On: 26.04.2005

 Shaji  Vs. State of Kerala

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.K. Basheer, J.

Citations: 2005 (3) KLT 303

Print Page

Supreme court: Procedure to be followed by Criminal court if accused is unable to remain present before the court for recording his statement U/S 313 of CRPC in warrant or session trial

 Section 243(1) of the Code enables the accused, who is involved in the trial of warrant case instituted on police report, to put in any written statement. When any such statement is filed the Court is obliged to make it part of the record of the case. Even if such case is not instituted on police report the accused has the same right (vide Section 247). Even the accused involved in offences exclusively triable by the Court of sessions can also exercise such a right to put in written statements [Section 233(2) of the Code]. It is common knowledge that most of such written statements, if not all, are prepared by the counsel of the accused. If such written statements can be treated as statements directly emanating from the accused, hook, line and sinker, why not the answers given by him in the manner set out hereinafter, in special contingencies, be afforded the same worth.

23. We think that a pragmatic and humanistic approach is warranted in regard to such special exigencies. The word "shall" in Clause (b) to Section 313(1) of the Code is to be interpreted as obligatory on the Court and it should be complied with when it is for the benefit of the accused. But if it works to his great prejudice and disadvantage the Court should, in appropriate cases, e.g., if the accused satisfies the court that he is unable to reach the venue of the court, except by bearing huge expenditure or that he is unable to travel the long journey due to physical incapacity or some such other hardship relieve him of such hardship and at the same time adopt a measure to comply with the requirements in Section 313 of the Code in a substantial manner. How this could be achieved?

24. If the accused (who is already exempted from personally appearing in the Court) makes an application to the court praying that he may be allowed to answer the questions without making his physical presence in court on account of justifying exigency the court can pass appropriate orders thereon, provided such application is accompanied by an affidavit sworn to by the accused himself containing the following matters: (a) A narration of facts to satisfy the court of his real difficulties to be physically present in court for giving such answers, (b) An assurance that no prejudice would be caused to him, in any manner, by dispensing with his personal presence during such questioning, (c) An undertaking that he would not raise any grievance on that score at any stage of the case.

25. If the court is satisfied of the genuineness of the statements made by the accused in the said application and affidavit it is open to the court to supply the questionnaire to his advocate (containing the questions which the court might put to him under Section 313 of the Code) and fix the time within which the same has to be returned duly answered by the accused together with a properly authenticated affidavit that those answers were given by the accused himself. He should affix his signature on all the sheets of the answered questionnaire. However, if he does not wish to give any answer to any of the questions he is free to indicate that fact at the appropriate place in the questionnaire [as a matter of precaution the Court may keep photocopy or carbon copy of the questionnaire before it is supplied to the accused for answers]. If the accused fails to return the questionnaire duly answered as aforesaid within the time or extended time granted by the court, he shall forfeit his right to seek personal exemption from court during such questioning.

26. In our opinion, if the above course is adopted in exceptional exigency it would not violate the legislative intent envisaged in Section 313 of the Code.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 869 of 2000

Decided On: 11.10.2000

 Basavaraj R. Patil   Vs.   State of Karnataka 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

K.T. Thomas, R.P. Sethi and S.N. Variava, JJ.

Citation: MANU/SC/0632/2000: AIR 2000 SC 3214.

Authored By : K.T. Thomas, R.P. Sethi

Print Page

Supreme Court guidelines for grant of personal exemption to accused from attending court in criminal proceeding

 The position, therefore, boils down to this: it is within the powers of a Magistrate and in his judicial discretion to dispense with the personal appearance of an Accused either throughout or at any particular stage of such proceedings in a summons case, if the Magistrate finds that insistence of his personal presence would itself inflict enormous suffering or tribulations on him, and the comparative advantage would be less. Such discretion need be exercised only in rare instances where due to the far distance at which the Accused resides or carries on business or on account of any physical or other good reasons the Magistrate feels that dispensing with the personal attendance of the Accused would only be in the interests of justice. However, the Magistrate who grants such benefit to the Accused must take the precautions enumerated above, as a matter of course. We may reiterate that when an Accused makes an application to a Magistrate through his duly authorised counsel praying for affording the benefit of his personal presence being dispensed with the Magistrate can consider all aspects and pass appropriate orders thereon before proceeding further.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1901 of 2019 

Decided On: 16.12.2019

 Puneet Dalmia Vs.  Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Ashok Bhushan and M.R. Shah, JJ.

Print Page

Whether trial court should grant personal exemption to accused in cheque dishonour case as a matter of course?

In Basavaraj R. Patil and Ors. (supra) while advocating a pragmatic and humanistic approach in less serious offences, Thomas, J. speaking for the majority in a Bench of three learned Judges, explained the scope of Clause (b) to Section 313(1) of the Code as follows:

The word "shall" in Clause (b) to Section 313(1) of the Code is to be interpreted as obligatory on the court and it should be complied with when it is for the benefit of the accused. But if it works to his great prejudice and disadvantage the court should, in appropriate cases, e.g., if the accused satisfies the court that he is unable to reach the venue of the court, except by bearing huge expenditure or that he is unable to travel the long journey due to physical incapacity or some such other hardship, relieve him of such hardship and at the same time adopt a measure to comply with the requirements in Section 313 of the Code in a substantial manner. How could this be achieved?

If the accused (who is already exempted from personally appearing in the court) makes an application to the court praying that he may be allowed to answer the questions without making his physical presence in court on account of justifying exigency the court can pass appropriate orders thereon, provided such application is accompanied by an affidavit sworn to by the accused himself containing the following matters:

(a) A narration of facts to satisfy the court of his real difficulties to be physically present in court for giving such answers.

(b) An assurance that no prejudice would be caused to him, in any manner, by dispensing with his personal presence during such questioning.

(c) An undertaking that he would not raise any grievance on that score at any stage of the case.

15. It is manifest from the afore-extracted passage that dispensation with the personal examination of an accused in terms of the said provision is within the trial court's discretion, to be exercised keeping in view certain parameters, enumerated therein and not as a matter of course.

16. It is true that in direction (vii) supra, the learned Judge has clarified that the stipulations in the preceding paragraphs are not intended to fetter the discretion of the court to follow any different procedure, if there be compelling need but the requirement of recording 'specific reasons' by the Magistrate for deviating from the directions given in the order, as stipulated in the same paragraph, in our view, is by itself tantamount to putting fetters on the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. This is not warranted in law.

17. Thus, in the instant case, we have no hesitation in holding that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code and/or Article 227 of the Constitution by laying down the afore-extracted general directions, which are inconsistent with the clear language of Sections 205 and 313 of the Code, as noted above. We feel that in light of the afore-noted guidelines laid down by this Court, further directions on the same issue by the High Court were wholly uncalled for.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Crl. A. No. 1854 of 2008

Decided On: 14.01.2011

T.G N. Kumar Vs. State of Kerala and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram: 

D.K. Jain, A.K. Ganguly and H.L. Dattu, JJ.

Citation:(2011) 2 SCC 772

Print Page

Whether accused can claim personal exemption as per S 205 of CRPC as of right?

 It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is the 4th accused in C.C. No. 1731 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-V, Kozhikode. It is also an admitted fact that he was on bail and thereafter, he filed Annexure-VII application for personal exemption under Section 205 of the Code. In fact in the application, it was mentioned that he met with accident and suffered fracture and he is undergoing treatment for the same and internal fixation was done. He was also advised that he will have to undergo another operation for removal of the internal fixation and he will have to be under bed rest for long time. So he is not able to attend on all days. He may be permitted to answer the questions under Section 313 of the Code and also other statements, if any required, through his counsel Sri K. Pradeepan, Advocate, Kozhikode. So he prayed for allowing the application. He had also produced Annexure-VI Medical Certificate dated 14-12-2014 along with this application, in which it was mentioned that he suffered fracture and suffering from post-operative stiffness, and he was advised rest for 90 days from 14-12-2014. The application was pending from 2015 onwards. It appears that thereafter, he met with another accident and he had produced Annexure-XI to XV to prove that fact before this Court. However, these documents were not produced by the petitioner before the court below. He had produced only Annexure-VI along with Annexure-VII petition and under that circumstances, it cannot be said that the court below had committed any illegality in dismissing the application by passing Annexure-VIII order.

It is true that if the court is satisfied that the presence of the petitioner is not required on all occasions, when the presence of the petitioner can be obtained without difficulty, whenever his presence is required, the court can permit the petitioner to appear through his counsel restricting the days of his presence in the court, whenever his presence is required, and on which days it cannot be dispensed with. Further, granting personal exemption under Section 205 of the Code, is not a relief claimed as of right as well. It is a discretion to be exercised by the court, considering the circumstances mentioned in the petition. So under the circumstances, on the basis of the allegations made and the documents produced before the court below, the court below was not satisfied for granting exemption and that was the reason why the application has been dismissed. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with Annexure-VHI order.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA

Cri. M.C. No. 1462 of 2016

Decided On: 10.05.2016

 M.P. Shahul Hameed

Vs.

 State of Kerala and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

K. Ramakrishnan, J.

Citation: 2017 CRLJ 776 Kerala

Print Page

Whether Personal exemption U/S 205 of CRPC can be granted to accused in petty offences?

It does speak about the procedure to be followed by the accused
in case he receives summons in petty offences. If such summon issued
under Section 206 is received, the accused may even without appearing
plead guilty in writing and may transmit the amount of fine or if the
accused desires to appear by pleader, he may do so by authorizing his
pleader to plead guilty to the charge on his behalf and to pay the fine
through such pleader.
Under the scheme of the Code these two provisions of Section 253
and 206 can be resorted to in cases of trial of summons cases whereas
no such provision is there under the code with respect to trial of warrant
or sessions cases as a result of which obviously the accused can not be
allowed to plead guilty through his pleader. Therefore, in my view, the
case in which provisions of Section 253 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure can not be resorted to would be out of the purview of Section
205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under the circumstances, what has emerged is that the provision
of Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not invokable in all
cases, rather this is to be invoked in petty cases and the cases which
are not serious in nature. Here the offences alleged against the
petitioner can easily be said to be serious in nature.
In such situation, the provision of Section 205 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure is not invokable. The submission which was
advanced regarding role being played by a person in the commission of
offence has nothing to do with the invocation of the provision as
contained in Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
Cr.Rev.No.1194 of 2015
Smt.Namita Das 
V E R S U S
State of Jharkhand through C.B.I
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD

Dated;27.11.15. 
Citation; 2016 CRLJ1569

Print Page

Whether personal exemption can be granted to accused in serious offence?

It does speak about the procedure to be followed by the accused
in case he receives summons in petty offences. If such summon issued
under Section 206 is received, the accused may even without appearing
plead guilty in writing and may transmit the amount of fine or if the
accused desires to appear by pleader, he may do so by authorizing his
pleader to plead guilty to the charge on his behalf and to pay the fine
through such pleader.
Under the scheme of the Code these two provisions of Section 253
and 206 can be resorted to in cases of trial of summons cases whereas
no such provision is there under the code with respect to trial of warrant
or sessions cases as a result of which obviously the accused can not be
allowed to plead guilty through his pleader. Therefore, in my view, the
case in which provisions of Section 253 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure can not be resorted to would be out of the purview of Section
205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under the circumstances, what has emerged is that the provision
of Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not invokable in all
cases, rather this is to be invoked in petty cases and the cases which
are not serious in nature. Here the offences alleged against the
petitioner can easily be said to be serious in nature.
In such situation, the provision of Section 205 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure is not invokable. 
In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
Cr.Rev.No.1194 of 2015
Smt.Namita Das V  State of Jharkhand through C.B.I…

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD

Dated; 27.11.15. 
Citation;2016 CRLJ 1569

Print Page

Whether accused can be granted exemption from appearance in court even if he has not furnished bail bond?

As far as the provisions of Section 88 Cr.P.C. are concerned, as quoted above, such provisions can be availed only in case the person for whose appearance or arrest the summon or warrant has been issued to present in such Court. Section 88 Cr.P.C. also does not speak to exempt the accused without executing the bond with or without sureties for his appearance in the Court. In view of the provisions of Section 90 Cr.P.C., this provisions is also applicable only to every summon and every warrant of arrest issued under this Code. Admittedly, the petitioner has not yet appeared personally before the Court. Therefore, he cannot get the benefit of Section 88Cr.P.C

Allahabad High Court

Arvind Kejriwal vs The State Of U.P And Ors. on 27 August, 2015

Bench: Aditya Nath Mittal

Citation;2016 CRLJ128

Print Page

When application of accused for personal exemption will be rejected?

"It appears that the sole objective of accused behind moving this application is to somehow delay the trial of the case, because in this case evidence by way of affidavit was so placed on record by the complainant on 04.12.2006, and it is almost 2 years from then and till date the present application has not been filed by ld. CI for accused. Application is therefore devoid of any merits, same is dismissed accordingly with an exemplary cost of Rs 5000.

Lastly I will take up application moved by accused seeking his exemption from personal appearance on the ground of his illness. The medical certificate attached with the said application is of some "Prayag Hospital", situated at Noida, U.P. Original certificate not produced for the perusal of this Court. A bare perusal of the medical certificate reveals a lot of discrepancies in it. Neither it bears the registration number of the said hospital nor even name of the doctor or his enrollment number has been mentioned in the certificate. There is only a seal of hospital affixed on it.

As per rules of Medical Council of India, each and every doctor should ensure that any medical certificate issued by him must disclose his name as well his enrollment number on all the communications made by him. Hence, prima facie I have a grave suspicion about the authenticity and genuineness of this medical certificate itself. Further perusal of record reveals that accused is habitual of seeking frequent exemptions on one pretext or the other and it is always difficult to secure his presence so as to ensure the smooth progress in the trial of the case which is contrary to the mandate given by Hon‟ble Supreme Court as well as our own Hon‟ble High Court who have time and again cautioned the subordinate judiciary to dispose of the cases under Section 138 N.I. Act as expeditiously as possible. Therefore, I do not find any merits in this application, same is dismissed accordingly."

Delhi High Court

M/S Nova Vision Electronics ... vs State And Another on 15 July, 2009

Author: Rajiv Shakdher

Citation;2011 CRLJ868 Delhi

Print Page

Whether court can close cross examination of accused while granting him personal exemption?

On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it
appears that it was only on 18/12/2014 that the further crossexamination
of the petitioner was deferred. It is a common ground
that the further cross-examination was deferred as the Court time
was over and it was fixed on 08/01/2015. On that day, the
petitioner had sought exemption which was granted. However,
the evidence was closed. The impugned order shows that what
weighed the Magistrate is that the application was not supported
with Medical Certificate. Considering the overall circumstances, I
find that a fair opportunity can be granted to the petitioner in the
matter. 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 5 OF 2015
M/s. Ambaal Holdings V Pyramid Finance Private Limited

CORAM :- C. V. BHADANG, J.
Date : 23rd March , 2015.
Citation;2015 ALLMR(CRI)3666 Bom

Print Page