Discretionary powers of trial courts must be exercised judiciously, balancing individual liberty and public interest, particularly in the issuance of non-bailable warrants.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. RAMESH, J.

1.1. The brief facts of the case are as follows :-

1.2. The appellant herein has been arrayed as the 11^th accused in Spl.S.C.No.20 of 2022, which is pending trial before the Special Court under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial for Bomb Blast Cases, Chennai at Poonamallee, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as 'the Special Court'), wherein he has been charged of having committed the offences under Sections 153(A)(1)(B), 341, 294(b), 302, 302 r/w 109, 212 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) under Sections 18, 16(1)(a) under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

1.3. When the case was listed for trial on 30.01.2025, the appellant had filed a petition under Section 317 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) in Crl.M.P.No.73 of 2025, to condone his absence on the ground of ill-health.

1.4. The Special Court had, in its order dated 30.01.2025, recorded that about 65 witnesses were examined during the course of trial, which commenced on 01.12.2021 and except A11, A1 to A13 were present, apart from three witnesses, who could not be examined on that day due to the absence of A11. It was further recorded therein that the appellant had filed similar petitions under Section 317 Cr.P.C. on ten earlier occasions between 06.08.2024 and 28.11.2024, owing to which the trial proceedings were delayed and accordingly dismissed the petition in Crl.M.P.No.73 of 2025. Consequently, a Non-bailable Warrant (NBW) was issued against the appellant.

1.5. On the same day, i.e. 30.01.2025, the appellant had personally appeared before the Special Court and filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.76 of 2025 under Section 70(2) of Cr.P.C., seeking to recall the NBW. The Special Court, however, dismissed this petition also on the same day, by quoting similar reasons, as spelt out in its order passed in Crl.M.P.No.73 of 2025 dated 30.01.2025 and observed that the appellant has been adopting delaying tactics in completing the trial and accordingly remanded him into judicial custody.

1.6. The order in Crl.M.P.No.76 of 2025 dated 30.01.2025 is assailed in this appeal.

2. Before we venture to address the grounds raised by the appellant, challenging the order impugned, we intend to place on record certain ally of facts that are being regularly brought to our attention through appeals arising out of orders passed by the same Special Court.

3. In the past one month, we are confronted with several orders of this Special Court, rejecting petitions filed by the accused under Section 317 Cr.P.C. In all these petitions, the only ground of rejection expressed by the Special Court is that the accused has already filed similar petitions under Section 317 Cr.P.C., which came to be allowed by the Court and the one, which is put under challenge before us, is a dilatory tactic adopted by the concerned accused.

4. With this background in mind, we deem it appropriate to bring to the notice of the Special Court with regard to the underlying manner of procedure to be adopted by a Trial Court, while dealing with a petition under Section 317 Cr.P.C. to dispense with the appearance of an accused on a particular hearing date or under Section 70(2) for recalling a NBW.

5. We hasten to add here that the power of the Special Court to deal with either of these petitions is a discretionary power vested with the Special Court. However, such discretionary powers requires to be exercised judicially, with extreme care and caution, which ratio has been consistently reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in several of its decisions, including the decision in Inder Mohan Goswami and Another Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Others reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1. What is expected of the Trial Court to be judicious when it exercises its discretionary powers, is that such powers must be exercised by showing good judgment or sense.

6. In the case of Maneka Sanjay Gandhi and Another Vs. Rani Jethmalani reported in (1979) 4 SCC 167, the Hon'ble Supreme Court ha