The court emphasized that the power to grant exemption from personal appearance under Sections 205 and 317 Cr.P.C. should be exercised liberally, especially when the accused has undertaken to appear through counsel.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

1. Heard Sri Tamjeed Ahmad assisted by Sri Shailendra Yadav the counsel for the applicant and Sri Shiv P. Shukla who appears for the Enforcement Directorate.

2. This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the order dated 24.06.2024 whereby the application filed by the applicant under section 317 Cr.P.C. was rejected mainly on the grounds that the applicant had himself given the bond of undertaking under section 88 Cr.P.C wherein he had undertaken to appear on all the dates, the application could not be considered and further no charge has been framed till date.

3. While considering the application of the applicant in respect of inconvenience caused on account of distance of travel in between the residence and the court, the court observed that in the application under section 88 Cr.P.C., the applicant had undertaken to be present on all the dates. It was further recorded that the applicant has not been granted bail and was only granted the benefit under section 88 Cr.P.C.

4. The submission of the counsel for the applicant, in brief, are that in ECIR Case, complaint was filed by the E.D. without arresting the applicant in October 2023 and the applicant was summoned in terms of the complaint filed by the ED. The applicant appeared before the court concerned and in view of the law as declared in the case of Tarsem Lal vs. Directorate of Enforcement; 2024 INSC 434, the applicant moved an application under section 88 Cr.P.C. giving personal bond, which was accepted vide order dated 01.06.2024 in which a condition was imposed by the court that he would be present on all the dates and would cooperate with the trial, the other conditions were also imposed.

5. After passing of the order accepting the personal bond under section 88 Cr.P.C. on 01.06.2024, the applicant moved an application purporting to be under section 317 Cr.P.C. on 10.06.2024 mentioning therein that the applicant is a resident of Bengaluru which is approximately 2500 kilometres from Lucknow and the dates are being fixed on a weekly basis and considering the inconvenience and the cost involved in travelling, the same is not economically feasible more so when he has to look after the aged parents, as such, he sought exemption from appearance on regular dates only and made an undertaking to appear in case of specific dates for example framing of charges and the proceedings under section 313 Cr.P.C. etc., the said application came up for consideration, which was dismissed by means of the impugned order.

6. While arguing the present application, the counsel for the applicant argues that the trial court has erred in rejecting the application under section 317 Cr.P.C., he argues that in the judgment of the Tarsem Lal (supra) itself, a window was left open for seeking exemption under section 205 Cr.P.C. He also places reliance on another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sharif Ahmad and another vs. State of U.P. and another; 2024 SCC Online SC 726 and places emphasis on paragraph 47, which is as under :

"47. Further, the observation that there is no provision for granting exemption from personal appearance prior to obtaining bail, is not correct, as the power to grant exemption from personal appearance under the Code should not be read in a restrictive manner as applicable only after the accused has been granted bail. This Court in Maneka Sanjay Gandhi and Another v. Rani Jethmalani held that the power to grant exemption from personal appearance should be exercised liberally, when facts and circumstances require such exemption. Section 205 states that the Magistrate, exercising his discretion, may dispense with the personal attendance of the accused while issuing summons, and allow them to appear through their pleader. While provisions of the Code are considered to be exhaustive, cases arise where the Code is silent and the court has to make such order as the ends of justice require. In such cases, the criminal