The court established that under amended provisions, the accused's appearance via video conferencing is permissible, ensuring fair trial rights and expediting proceedings.

ORDER

This petition under Section 528 of BNSS , 2023 is filed feeling aggrieved by the order dated 10.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Distt. Bagli Distt. Dewas in Cr.R. No. 0/2024, affirming the order dated 23.11.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dewas in S.C. NIA. No. 19/2017

2. The exposition of the facts, giving rise to the present petition, is as under :-

(i) The petitioner Girrraj Pandey is facing trial for offence punishable u/S 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bagli, Distt. Dewas.

(ii) The petitioner was extended the benefit of bail by the learned JMFC in 2021. The petitioner remained absent on the date of hearing on 24.06.2022. Learned Trial Court issued permanent warrant of arrest against the petitioner.

(iii) The petitioner appeared through his counsel before the trial Court on 03.07.2024 and informed that he is incarcerated in the District Jail of Udaipur and suffering sentence of imprisonment and conviction by the Court at Udaipur.

(iv) The trial Court issued production warrant, directing the presence of petitioner in custody.

(v) The Superintendent of District Jail, Udaipur (Raj.) informed the trial Court that they are unable to produce the petitioner/accused for the reason of non-availability of Reserved Force.

(vi ) The petitioner/accused filed an application u/S 437 r/W Section

70(2) of Cr.P.C. praying for grant of bail by securing his presence through video conferencing.

(vii) Learned trial Court vide order dated 23.11.2024 held that personal appearance of the petitioner is required in the case and directed the Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Udaipur to produce the petitioner on 18.12.2024. The hearing on bail application was adjourned.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 23.11.2024, the petitioner preferred revision before the Sessions Court. Learned Sessions Court vide order dated 10.12.2024 dismissed the revision petition and affirmed the order of learned trial Court.

4. Being aggrieved by the aforestated orders, this petition is filed on the following grounds:

(i) The petitioner was extended the benefit of bail by the learned trial Court. The petitioner failed to appear before the trial Court, as he was in judicial custody of the Court at Udaipur.

(ii) The petitioner is incarcerated in District Jail, Udaipur. The bail application is kept pending by the learned Court only on the ground that the petitioner/accused is not appearing in person before the Court.

(iii) The order of the trial Court adjourning the bail application compelling personal appearance of the petitioner before the Court is illegal and without jurisdiction.

5. On these grounds, it is prayed that both the impugned orders be set aside and the petitioner be permitted to appear through video conferencing for hearing on grant of bail.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the order-sheets of the trial Court contends that despite issuance of production warrant vide order dated 09.08.2024, the petitioner could not be produced till date due to non-availability of Reserved Force. Learned trial Court has deferred the hearing on his bail application on the ground that the petitioner was not produced in person before the Court. Learned trial Court declined to consider his presence through video conferencing. Both the Courts committed error in refusing to consider the presence of petitioner through video conferencing.

7. Heard, perused the record.

8. The Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 was amended by the State legislature to incorporate provisions for use of audio video electronic means for facilitating appearance of under-trials. The “STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS” for the Criminal law (