SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
Chandmal @ Chandanmal - Appellant
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 359 of 2023 [@ SLP [Crl.] No. 1912 of 2022] With Criminal Appeal No. 360 of 2023 [@ SLP(Crl) No. 3112 of 2022]
Decided On : 07-02-2023
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 70 – Issuance of non-bailable warrants – Appellants are aged persons in their 70s and alleged offences have a maximum punishment up to seven years, despite they have been called upon to surrender in Court concerned – Court would normally expect that even in District Courts, in Covid period, arrangements would have been made for virtual hearing – It is not as if virtual method of appearing before Court has to be abandoned as this is an alternative method of appearance now which is to be followed by different Courts – Appellants can always connect virtually for proceedings looking to their age – Impugned orders set aside. (Paras 6 to 9)
Facts of the case:
Point in issue is whether on the charge-sheet having been filed and during that period the appellants having cooperated but not having appeared before the Court personally but through a counsel, the action of the trial Court to issue non-bailable warrants is something which can be sustained.
Findings of Court:
We are not also be able to appreciate the impugned order dated 24.01.2022 passed by the High Court calling upon the appellants, despite recognizing the fact that they are aged persons in their 70s and the alleged offences has a maximum punishment up to seven years, they have been called upon to surrender in the Court concerned.
Result : Appeals allowed.
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. The issue before us is whether on the charge-sheet having been filed and during that period the appellants having cooperated but not having appeared before the Court personally but through a counsel, the action of the trial Court to issue non-bailable warrants is something which can be sustained.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants urged on 09.02.2022 as he urges today that the bail ought to have been granted as a matter of course in view of the judgment of this Court in Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. – (2022) 1 SCC 676. We issued notice and granted interim protection.
4. Learned counsel for the State does not dispute that no further investigation is required in this matter.
5. We may note that even the mandate subsequently incorporated in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. – (2021) 10 SCC 773 has been violated. We fail to understand why despite these judgments having been circulated, some of the trial Courts are conducting and passing the orders in the teeth of these judgments. It is a matter of concern that these cases thus, keep on coming up to the apex Court unnecessarily.
6. We are not also be able to appreciate the impugned order dated 24.01.2022 passed by the High Court calling upon the appellants, despite recognizing the fact that they are aged persons in their 70s and the alleged offences has a maximum punishment up to seven years, they have been called upon to surrender in the Court concerned.
7. We would normally expect that even in the District Courts, in the Covid period, arrangements would have been made for virtual hearing. It is not as if the virtual method of appearing before the Court has to be abandoned as this is an alternative method of appearance now which is to be followed by different Courts.
8. Thus, the appellants can always connect virtually for the proceedings looking to their age.
9. The impugned orders are set aside.
10. The appeals accordingly stand allowed leaving parties to bear their own costs.
Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.
Issuance of non-bailable warrants – Virtual method of appearing before Court is an alternative method of appearance now which is to be followed by different Courts.
The fundamental right of every citizen, including the accused person, under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the applicability of Section 11 of the Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts....
Till disposal of such application of petitioners, non-bailable warrant shall not be executed against them but if petitioners do not file application within four weeks, as aforesaid, benefit of this o....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.