At the Stage of Framing Charge, Presumption Suffices; Suicide Note and Grave Suspicion Enough: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Charge Under Section 306 IPC 173 CrPC | Framing of Charge Marks End of Investigation—Complainant Cannot Reopen Probe Merely by Citing Police Lapses: Bombay High Court Recovery Alone Cannot Prove Guilt: Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Photos, Videos Must Go: Supreme Court Binds Warring Spouses to Clean Up Social Media in Matrimonial Settlement Standard for Bail Under Section 319 CrPC Is Higher Than Framing of Charge, But Short of Conviction: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Accused Summoned Mid-Trial State Cannot Arbitrarily Deny Subsidies to 'New Industrial Units' by Retrospectively Applying Expansion Caps: Supreme Court Companies Act | Offence Under Section 448 Is Covered Under Section 447: Supreme Court Bars Private Complaint Without SFIO Nod “See-To-It” Obligation Is Not A Guarantee Under Indian Law: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope Of Section 126 ICA In IBC Disputes Mere Employment of Litigant’s Relatives in Police or Court Doesn't Prove Judicial Bias: Supreme Court Sets Aside Transfer of Criminal Case Reserved Candidate Availing Relaxed Standards in Prelims Cannot Migrate to General Quota for Cadre Allocation: Supreme Court Mere Vesting Does Not Mean Possession: Supreme Court Rules ULC Proceedings Abated For Failure To Serve Mandatory Notice To Actual Occupants Contempt of Courts Act | Natural Justice in Administrative Action: Supreme Court Directs West Bengal Govt to Re-Adjudicate Teachers' Arrears Claims Live-In Relationship with Married Man Not a ‘Relationship in the Nature of Marriage’ Under Domestic Violence Act: Bombay High Court Applies Supreme Court Guidelines Income Tax Act | Substitution of Shares held as Stock-in-Trade upon Amalgamation constitutes Taxable Business Income if Commercially Realisable: Supreme Court Judges Cannot Enact Their Own Protocols During Bail Hearings: Supreme Court Sets Aside Sweeping Age Determination Directions In POCSO If There Is Knowledge That Injury Is Likely To Cause Death, But No Intention Falls Under Section 304 Part II:  Supreme Court High Court Ignored POCSO’s Statutory Rigour, Committed Grave Error in Granting Bail: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Gang-Rape Accused Section 22 HSA | Co-Heirs Have Statutory Right of Pre-Emption Even in Urban Property: Punjab & Haryana High Court 138 NI Act | Issuance of Separate Cheques Gives Rise to Independent Causes of Action, Even if Drawn for Same Underlying Transaction: Supreme Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Exemption from Personal Appearance, Emphasizes Accused's Rights and Convenience

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently granted exemption from personal appearance to the accused in a criminal case while emphasizing the importance of safeguarding the accused's rights and convenience. The decision was rendered by Hon'ble Justice Harpreet Singh Brar on 22nd May 2023.

The judgment highlighted that personal appearance of the accused should be dispensed with when it causes hardship or inconvenience, especially in cases where trial delays have resulted in unjustified suffering. Justice Brar stated, "The failure of the prosecution to produce its witnesses and conclude the trial in almost five years has put the petitioners through unjustified suffering and inconvenience."

The court established parameters for granting exemption, such as being a woman, elderly, disabled, facing economic or physical hardship, or required to travel long distances. These instances were considered illustrative, with the court emphasizing that each case should be assessed based on its unique circumstances. Justice Brar further remarked, "The trial Court should be generous in exempting the accused from appearing in person... If no useful purpose would be served in insisting upon the personal appearance... the personal appearance of the accused shall not be insisted upon."

The judgment cited relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, including Sections 205 and 317, which empower the court to dispense with personal appearance and proceed with trial in the absence of the accused. The court clarified that exemption from personal appearance does not affect the presumption of innocence, stating, "Every accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty... The presumption of innocence is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India."

While the court declined the petitioners' request to quash the FIR and charges, it exempted their personal appearance before the trial court, subject to certain conditions. The court held that the trial court should exercise its powers under Sections 205 and 317 generously and liberally, considering the progress of the trial and the inconvenience caused to the accused.

This judgment reiterates the importance of balancing the interests of justice with the rights and convenience of the accused. By granting exemption from personal appearance, the court aims to expedite trial proceedings and reduce unnecessary hardships faced by the accused.

Date of Decision: 22nd May 2023

Suresh Kumar and another vs The State of Haryana and another

Latest Legal News