“Insensitivity To Settled Law”: Madras HC Criticises Special Bomb Blast Court For Arbitrarily Denying Exemption From Appearance To Accused

The Madras High Court recently criticised the Special Court for Bomb Blast Cases for rejecting applications filed by accused persons under Section 317 CrPC on the ground that the accused had already filed such petitions. The court thus recalled an NBW issued by the special court.The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice N Senthilkumar noted that the Supreme Court has consistently held that the trial courts should not issue NBWs without application of mind and have held that the power to grant exemption from personal appearance should be exercised liberally when facts and circumstances require such an exemption. The bench thus noted that the special court was being consistently insensitive to the settled proposition of law. “The Special Court has been consistently demonstrating of being insensitive to all these settled propositions of law and has been consistently rejecting petitions of these nature, including the present case in hand, only on the view that the accused is indulging in dilatory tactics,” the court said. The court was hearing an appeal by Mohammed Faruk against the trial court's refusal to recall the NBW issued against him. Faruk was arrayed as an accused in a case pending before the Special Court and was charged for committing offences under Sections 153(A)(1)(B), 341, 294(b), 302, 302 read with Section 109, 212 of the IPC and Section 18, 16(1)(a) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. When the case was posted for trial on January 30, 2025, Faruk filed a petition under Section 317 of the CrPC to condone his absence on the grounds of ill-health. The Special Judge, however, dismissed the petition and issued an NBW, noting that he had filed similar petitions on ten earlier occasions, owing to which the trial proceedings were delayed. Though Faruk personally appeared before the Special Court and filed a petition to recall the NBW, the court dismissed it. The court noted that the only reason for rejecting the application was that the appellant had filed similar petitions on ten earlier occasions and attempted to delay the trial. The court was, however, not in favour of endorsing this view. The court noted that the special judge was arbitrarily exercising his powers. “As recorded earlier, we are being continuously confronted with several orders of the Special Court rejecting petitions under Section 317 Cr.P.C. in a routine manner. Had the Special Court reminded itself of the broad underlying principles in dealing with a petition of this nature, as highlighted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions recorded by us above, the travesty could have been avoided. Thus, the disregard to these well settled principles of law and rejecting the petitions under Section 317 Cr.P.C. and 70(2) Cr.P.C. is an arbitrary exercise of its powers,” the court said. The court noted that though Section 273 CrPC envisages that the evidence be taken in the presence of accused, it commences with the phrase “except as otherwise expressly provided” and this exception was provided under Section 299 CrPC. Thus, the court noted that instead of shifting the reason on the accused for delaying the trial, the special court could have proceeded with the trial subject to the contours of permissibility under Section 299 CrPC. The court added that whenever such petitions are filed under Section 317 of CrPC, the endeavour of the court must be to ensure that the trial is not affected by resorting to alternate discretions available under the CrPC. “We have recorded all these aspects touching upon the scope of a petition either under Section 317 Cr.P.C. or under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C., with a fond hope that the Special Court will refrain its arbitrary exercise of powers while dealing with these petitions. At the same time, the Special Court shall also endeavour to ensure that whenever petitions of these nature are presented before the Court, the conduct of trial is not affected by resorting to the alternate discretions available under the Cr.P.C., for proceeding without the presence of the accused,” the court said. The court was thus inclined to set aside the order of the Special Court and to recall the warrant issued. Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. I. Abdul Basith Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. R. Karthikeyan, Special Public Prosecutor Case Title: Mohammed Faruk v. Union of India Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 121 Case No: Crl.A.No.250 of 2025Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment

“Insensitivity To Settled Law”: Madras HC Criticises Special Bomb Blast Court For Arbitrarily Denying Exemption From Appearance To Accused

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

“Insensitivity To Settled Law”: Madras HC Criticises Special Bomb Blast Court For Arbitrarily Denying Exemption From Appearance To Accused

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers