Judicial Custody for Mere Absence Is Unjustified: Andhra Pradesh High Court Restores Bail, Slams Trial Court for Mechanical Remand

“Framing of Charges Doesn’t Require Mandatory Personal Appearance”, In a notable judgment the High Court of Andhra Pradesh emphatically reminded trial courts of the necessity to exercise bail jurisdiction judiciously and not mechanically remand accused persons into custody for a solitary absence. Hon’ble Dr. Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa allowed the appeals, set aside the rejection of bail applications by the Special Judge, and directed the immediate release of the appellants.

The Court was dealing with the case of two accused persons, who were on regular bail in a case under Sections 353 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015. Despite being granted bail earlier, they were remanded to judicial custody for failing to appear on a single hearing date when the matter was scheduled for framing of charges. The High Court observed, “Their absence was not deliberate, and their presence was not essential at the pre-charge stage. The invocation of judicial custody in such circumstances is not justified.”

Justice Pratapa, while recording the background of the case, noted, “The learned Trial Court issued non-bailable warrants merely because neither the accused nor their counsel appeared on a particular date, 10.06.2025. On execution of these warrants, the accused were taken into custody and their fresh bail applications were dismissed, despite their prior regular bail order.”

The appellants argued that they had not absconded and their absence was due to unavoidable personal and health reasons, and that there was no malicious intent to evade the process of law. Emphasizing this, the High Court found, “The record discloses that the absence of the appellants was a singular instance and was not habitual. Judicial discretion ought to have considered this circumstance rather than resorting to a rigid interpretation of court attendance.”

Justice Pratapa criticised the trial court’s approach, stating, “The matter was coming up for hearing on framing of charges. The law does not mandate the personal presence of accused at such a stage when duly represented by counsel. The Trial Judge acted without examining the necessity of the accused's physical presence before issuing coercive process.”

The High Court took a firm view that mere absence on the date fixed for charge hearing, without any willful default or repeated non-appearance, does not justify cancellation of bail and incarceration. “When the appellants were already on regular bail, keeping them in custody merely for not appearing on one date serves no meaningful purpose in the administration of criminal justice,” the Court remarked.

In setting aside the impugned orders of the Special Judge for SC/ST Act cases, Kurnool, the Court conclusively held, “Judicial custody should be resorted to as an exception, not as a default punishment for procedural lapses. The order under challenge is hereby quashed.”

The Court allowed the appeals with the direction, “The appellants/Accused Nos. 2 and 4 shall be released on bail on furnishing personal bonds of ₹10,000 each with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.” All pending miscellaneous petitions were accordingly closed.

With this judgment, the High Court reinforced the principle that courts must not adopt a mechanical approach to bail cancellation, especially in cases where liberty has already been granted and the absence does not affect the trial’s progress. The ruling serves as a precedent cautioning trial courts against overreach in matters of bail, particularly when the rights under Article 21 of the Constitution are involved.

Date of Decision: 10th July 2025