Sunil Thomas, J.

The petitioner herein is the first accused in CC No.305/2016 of JFCM-II, Mavelikara, charge sheeted for offences punishable under sections 323, 324, 326, 341, 427 read with section 34 IPC.

2. According to the petitioner, he was employed abroad at Sharja and only occasionally he would be granted leave by his employer. He became aware of his involvement in the case, when warrant was attempted to be served at his home address. On enquiry, it was revealed that without proper investigation, the case was charge sheeted and that, summons issued from the court below was not duly served on him. Only after the non-bailable warrant was issued, the petitioner came to know about the case through the family members. Since it was difficult for the petitioner herein to obtain leave, counsel was engaged to appear before the court below and to seek exemption from personal appearance, invoking section 205 Cr.P.C. An application was accordingly filed by the counsel for the petitioner supported by an affidavit of the petitioner herein duly attested before the concerned Embassay official, inter alia, undertaking that, if he is exempted, he will not dispute his identity. The court below rejected that application on the sole reason that warrant has already been issued and was pending.

3. Aggrieved by the above order, the first accused has approached this Court invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C, seeking appropriate reliefs.

4. Heard both sides and examined the records.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, the court below, without properly evaluating the scope and ambit of section 205 Cr.P.C. dismissed the application, on a faulty reasoning that non bailable warrant had already been issued. According to the petitioner herein, the court below ought to have considered the background in which the non-bailable warrant was issued, that it was not practically possible for the petitioner herein to appear before the court below at that point of time and in the above circumstance, the personal appearance of the accused ought to have been exempted.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on various decisions to contend that the reliefs under sections 205 and 317 Cr.P.C. should be reasonably and liberally invoked, unless it was found that presence of accused was absolutely essential for the further progress of trial.

7. In Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. Bhiwani Denim And Apparels Ltd.(AIR 2001 SC 3625), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, under section 317 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate was empowered to dispense the personal presence of the accused in appropriate cases. It was held that if the progress of the trial can be achieved even in the absence of accused, the court can certainly take into account the magnitude of suffering which the accused person may have to bear to make himself present in the court. It was further held that Magistrate, exercising his judicial discretion, is competent to dispense the personal appearance of an accused, either through out 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 to him, and the comparative advantage would be less.

8. In Alice George v. Deputy Superintendent of Police (2003 KHC 51), this Court referring to sections 256, 273, 205, 317 Cr.P.C held that, it was unreasonable and irrational to insist for personal presence of the accused and the complainant on all dates of posting, irrespective of the nature and purpose. The court, after an elaborate consideration of legal principles involved, held that, Section 317 Cr.P.C should be liberally invoked in appropriate cases.

9. The above decisions lay down the principle that in appropriate cases, personal appearance of accused can be dispensed with. However, the crucial question that arises in this case is whether after issuance of the warrant, the trial court will be justified in exempting the personal appearanc