Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Brief facts necessary to be noted for deciding the appeal are:

The second respondent filed a complaint in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna alleging offence committed by the accused as well as Arnesh Kumar, her husband. The Magistrate vide order dated 11.10.2012 finding a prima facie case under Section 498A and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act summoned the accused as well as Arnesh Kumar, husband of the complainant. The accused as well as Arnesh Kumar filed an application for anticipatory bail during the pendency of the said application. Non-bailable warrants were issued by the Magistrate on 23.12.2012. All the accused that is appellants as well as Arnesh Kumar filed an application dated 17.01.2013 praying for recall of non-

bailable warrant and dispensing with their physical appearance in the case. It was appellants’ case that said application was filed because appellant No.1, father of Arnesh Kumar is a retired Army Official residing in Pune with appellant No.2 and other appellants were also residents of Pune, Maharashtra and they have to come from a distance. It was prayed by the accused that they be exempted from the personal appearance in the case. All the accused except Arnesh Kumar, husband of complainant were granted anticipatory bail. Anticipatory bail was granted by the District and Sessions Judge, Patna on 21.06.2013 to all the accused except Arnesh Kumar, husband of the complainant. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate by order dated 13.08.2013 rejected the application filed by the accused under Section 205 Cr.P.C.

13. With regard to this ground it is sufficient to notice that application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was not filed by the husband, Arnesh Kumar whose pre-arrest bail was already rejected. The present appellants, thus, were not pressing application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for Arnesh Kumar, the husband who could have very well participated in the proceedings. Thus, the above ground was also not available for rejection of the application. In the application the grounds which were given by the appellants was that, appellant No.1 father of Arnesh Kumar is retired Army personnel and residing in Pune with his wife that is appellant No.2. Appellant Nos.3 and 4 were also residing at Pune. Arnesh Kumar, the husband was working at Hyderabad. The Magistrate has not considered the grounds which were taken by the appellants for seeking exemption. It was on the record before the High Court that distance between residence of the accused and the place of trial at Patna is 1750 kms. It was further stated that appellant No.3, Ashok Kumar Yadav was a business man and running Company in Pune and appellant No.4 was a student of BCA in Pune. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances and the grounds taken by the appellants in their application under Section 205 Cr.P.C. as well as in the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed before the High Court, we are of the view that sufficient grounds were made out for granting exemption from personal appearance of the appellants in the trial. The Magistrate committed error in not adverting to the grounds taken for praying the exemption and rejected the application on the reasons which were unfounded. The Magistrate under Section 205 sub-Section (2) Cr.P.C. is empowered at any stage to direct personal appearance of the accused hence as and when personal appearance of the accused is required the Magistrate is empowered to issue necessary orders if so decides.