JUDGMENT :

P.S. Dinesh Kumar, J. - These two petitions have been presented by accused No.1 and 3 in S.C.No.86/2014 on the file of III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, challenging order dated 06.09.2018, rejecting their applications filed under Section 317 Cr.P.C, and issuing Non-Bailable Warrants against them.

2. Heard Shri C.V.Nagesh, learned Senior Advocate for accused No.1, Shri Ravi B.Naik, learned Senior Advocate for accused No.3 and Shri Sandesh J.Chouta, learned Additional Advocate General for the State.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, accused No.1 filed an application under Section 317 of Cr.P.C. on 06.09.2018 with a prayer to exempt his personal appearance for the day inter alia on the ground that, he was observing 'Chathurmasa', a spiritual practice to be observed by all Sanyasis; that he was doing 'Chathurmasa Parikrama' on the bank of Narmada river, where he had to perform religious rituals in certain temples; that he had fallen ill at Varanasi and after he recovered from illness, he continued his 'Parikrama', and that he could not wind-up the 'Parikrama' as it is against spiritual/religious tenets.

4. Learned Sessions Judge rejected the said application by following order:

"ORDERS ON APLICATION FILED ON

BEHALF OF A1 U/SEC.317 OF Cr.PC

There is directions from Hon'ble Supreme Court in Spl.Leave Petition No.1176/2017 to dispose of the matter expeditiously.

Accused No.1 remained absent form 14.06.2018.

On 16.08.2018, it is submitted on behalf of A1 that, accused No.1 being pontiff is observing Chathurmasa Parikrama and he will personally present before the court in the 1st week of September. Even the counsel for the accused No.1 has undertaken to keep A1 present before the court. However, once again today also EP is filed on behalf of A1.

Since there is directions from Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, it is for the accused to co-operate with the court for the disposal of the matter expeditiously. The undertaking given to this court on 16.08.2018 has not been complied.

On the last date of hearing Sri.ERGN for A1 has prayed time to argue on the applications filed under sec.301(2) of Cr.PC by CW1 and CW3. On that day, as requested, time granted as a final chance keeping in mind the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Today, he sought time to argue. Thus, it is prima-facie clear that, accused No.1 is not co-operating with the court to comply the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Hence, on this score also, it is not a fit case to exempt the appearance of A1. Therefore, the application filed on behalf of A1 deserves to be rejected.

Hence, the following:

ORDER

The application filed on behalf of A1 U/sec.317 of Cr.PC is hereby rejected.

Issue NBW to A1 and notice to his surety through SP, CID, Bengaluru.

Sd/-

III Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge,

Ramanagara."

5. Similarly, accused No.3 also filed an application under Section 317 of Cr.P.C, seeking exemption from personal appearance on the ground that his wife (accused No.5) was suffering from 'corrosive lichen planus' an autoimmune disease, which effects 0.5 to 1 percent of the population and if it were not treated would lead to Cancer; that Doctors in India and United States have opined that the disease is serious in nature; accused No.5 is not in a position to travel long distance and she required assistance of somebody, which was presently given by accused No.3.

6. The application filed by accused No.3 has also been rejected by following order:

"ORDERS ON APLICATION FILED ON

BEHALF OF A3 TO A6

Today, A3 to A6 are also absent. On their behalf, applications U/sec.317 of Cr.PC is filed.

Perused. A4 and A6 are present on the last date of hearing. Hence, their application deserves to be allowed.

A3 and A5 are regularly not present before the court. It is made clear that, A5 is suffering from serious ill-health. Therefore, her application deserves to be allowed.

Though this court as per its order dated 08.08.2018 has directed A3 to be present before this court,