The court can allow virtual appearances for plea recording under certain conditions, emphasizing justice accessibility.

ORDER

Dated this the 6^th day of March, 2025 Petitioner is the 6^th accused in S.C. No.1490 of 2023 on the files of the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ernakulam. The case originated from Crime No.382 of 2023 registered at the Thrikkakara Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 22 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

2. The petitioner was granted bail by this Court as per order dated 30.09.2023. Subsequently, at the request of the petitioner, trial court granted permission to travel to the United Kingdom for pursuing his studies in M.Sc. Digital Marketing at the Coventry University, U.K. The case was posted on 12.03.2024 for framing of charge and the petitioner being absent, trial court framed and read over charges to the other accused. The case was then posted to 16.03.2024 for framing charges against the petitioner. Even though, petitioner appeared through Video Conferencing mode on that day, the charge was not read over to him. The charge was not read over on the subsequent dates also, as the petitioner was not present in person. The court also proceeded to issue non-bailable warrant against the petitioner due to his absence. This Crl.M.C is hence filed, seeking the following reliefs:

“i) Quash the order/proceedings dated 05-07-2024 in Sessions Case No. 1490/2023 of Court of Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ernakulam issuing a non-bailable warrant against the petitioner and the notice to his sureties.

ii) Permit the petitioner to appear through VC for the remaining proceedings, in Sessions Case No. 1490/2023 of Court of Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ernakulam including trial, and direct the trial court to accept his virtual presence for all required hearings.

ⅲ) Declare that the bail bond of the petitioner stands reinstated, as if no order of cancellation or forfeiture of bail bond was issued in Sessions Case No. 1490/2023 of Court of Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ernakulam.”

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, since his client was present through virtual mode on 16.03.2024, court could have read over the charges and recorded his plea. According to the learned Counsel the petitioner can even be allowed to appear through Counsel for the purpose of recording his plea. In support of this contention reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. Bhiwani Denim And Apparels Ltd. /b> [ 2001 (7) SCC 401 ] with specific reference to paragraph Nos.17 and 18 therein. It is submitted that the duration of petitioner’s M.Sc. Course is for one more year and he will not be able to return to India until then.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that if the petitioner was desirous of his plea being recorded through virtual mode, he should have made an application for that purpose. The court cannot be faulted for not framing the charge and recording petitioner’s plea in the absence of an application.

5. With the introduction of the Video Conferencing Rules, it is now possible to permit appearance of accused through virtual mode in almost all stages of a case. The very purpose of the Video Conferencing Rules is to make access to justice easier for the parties. Hence, for the purpose of reading over the charge and recording the plea, accused can be permitted to appear through virtual mode. Needles to say, if the accused wants to appear through virtual mode he should submit appropriate application. As contended by the Counsel for the petitioner, court can even allow the Counsel to make the plea on behalf of the accused. Being contextually relevant paragraph No.17 of the judgment in Bhaskar Industries