Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 58542
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. Dias, J
N. Premanand – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 7447 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: C.P. Peethambaran
For the Respondents: Zubair Pulikool
An accused granted exemption from personal appearance under Section 205 CrPC, particularly when residing abroad, may be permitted to appear via electronic video linkage or through counsel, provided they undertake not to dispute their identity and appear only when absolutely imperative.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure - Personal Appearance of Accused - Exemption under Section 205 CrPC - Where the accused is employed abroad and has been granted exemption, the Trial Court should not insist on personal appearance unless absolutely imperative, especially when the accused undertakes not to dispute identity. (Para 6)
(B) Electronic Video Linkage - Use of Technology - Accused can avail electronic video linkage as per the Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021, subject to the filing of an application and an undertaking that the accused will not dispute his/her identity. (Para 5, 6)
Issues: Whether the Trial Court can insist on the personal appearance of an accused who has been granted exemption and is residing abroad, and whether electronic video linkage can be permitted in such circumstances.
CRL.MC NO. 7447 OF 2026
CRIME NO.96/2019 OF Kathirur Police Station, Kannur
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.1476 OF 2021
OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ,THALASSERY
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.09.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Dated this the 7th day of September, 2026
ORDER
The petitioner is the accused in CC No.1476/2021on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery (‘Trial Court’, for short), which has originated from Crime No.96/2019 registered by the Kathirur PoliceStation, Kannur.
2. It is the petitioner’s case that he was enlargedon bail and the plea against him was recorded. As he was employed abroad, he was granted exemption from his personal attendance. When the case was posted for trial on 02.06.2026, the petitioner’s counsel offered to cross- examine the witnesses and undertook that he would not dispute the identity of the petitioner. However, the Trial Court insisted that the petitioner should be present on the next posting date i.e. on 23.06.2026, As the petitioner could not get leave, he could not appear before the Trial Court. Consequently, by the proceedings dated 23.06.2026, the Trial Court has issued a Non-bailable warrant against the petitioner and has directed CWs1 to 3 to appear on summons and adjourned the case to 05.08.2026. The proceedings dated 02.06.2023 and 23.06.2026 are unreasonable and unjustifiable. The petitioner has specifically undertaken not to dispute his identity. As the petitioner is pursuing his employment abroad, and there is no likelihood of the trial in the case concluding in the near future, the petitioner’s career would be in jeopardy, if he is asked to appear before the Trial Court. Hence, the proceedings dated 02.06.2026 and 23.06.2026 may be set aside and the Trial Court maybe directed to proceed with the trial in the above case.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for thepetitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. Annexure A4 proceedings dated 08.03.2023substantiates that the Trial Court has granted exemption from the personal attendance of the petitioner under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Subsequently, the case was adjourned from time to time. On the strong belief that the petitioner need not personally appear before the Trial Court, he has gone abroad. It is only for the purpose of settling the dispute that the Trial Court has insisted for the personal appearance of the petitioner, which in turn has led to theimpugned proceedings.
5. In Abhil C.R. v. State of Kerala [2025 KHCOnLine 1650] , this Court has emphatically held that an accused can avail the electronic video linkage as per the provisions of the Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021,( Rules, for short) subject to the filing of an application with an undertaking that the accused will not dispute his/her identity. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Rameshan v. State of Kerala (2025 (6) KHC 545).
6. In light of the above exposition of law, and the fact that the petitioner's personal attendance has been exempted, that the petitioner undertakes not to dispute his identity and further there is no likelihood of the trial in case being completed in the near future, I am of the definite view that the petitioner’s personal appearance need not be insisted upon. If there is likelihood of the matter being settled, it would be upto the parties to settle the matter through their respective counsel. Furthermore, I am of the view that the petitioner can be permitted to avail the electronic video linkage as provided under the Rules. It is only when the petitioner’s presenceis imperative, the Trial Court shall insist for the same.In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow theCrl.M.C. in the following manner:
(1) The warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner isrecalled.
(2) The petitioner is permitted to appear through hiscounsel on all posting dates.
(3) The pet
