The High Court of Telangana has clarified that in appropriate circumstances, accused persons may be excused from personal attendance in criminal trials, provided they are adequately represented by counsel and remain amenable to court orders. This ruling reinforces procedural flexibility under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), balancing accused rights with judicial efficiency.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Pittala Abhilash and his parents, were named as accused persons in Criminal Case No. 2030 of 2025, arising from FIR No. 528/2024 registered at Manakondur Police Station, Karimnagar. The case pertains to a family dispute involving allegations under the Indian Penal Code, though the specific charges are not detailed in the order. The petitioners sought relief under Section 528 of the BNSS, which empowers High Courts to quash or modify criminal proceedings.
Procedural History
- FIR registered: 2024 at Manakondur Police Station
- C.C. No. 2030 of 2025: Framed before Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), Karimnagar
- Crl.P. No. 2189 of 2026: Filed in the High Court seeking quashment of proceedings against petitioners 1 to 3
- During hearing: Petitioners’ counsel narrowed prayer to seek exemption from personal appearance, not quashment
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought exemption from personal appearance in court proceedings, requesting that their presence be dispensed with and that they be represented solely by counsel. They also sought a stay on further proceedings pending resolution.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 528 of the BNSS permits a High Court to dispense with the personal appearance of accused persons in a criminal trial, and if so, under what conditions and limitations.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the accused persons - particularly the parents, aged 46 and 53, with no prior criminal record - were not flight risks and had no motive to evade trial. They emphasized that their presence was not essential for the trial’s integrity, especially since the matter involved a private family dispute. Counsel relied on the spirit of Section 528 BNSS, which allows courts to prevent abuse of process, and cited judicial trends favoring minimal intrusion into personal liberty where representation is assured.
For the Respondent
The Additional Public Prosecutor did not oppose the petitioners’ request. The State acknowledged that the accused were cooperative, had appeared before the police, and had no history of non-compliance. The State’s non-opposition effectively conceded that no prejudice would arise from exempting the accused from personal attendance, provided counsel represented them.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the scope of Section 528 BNSS, noting that while it primarily empowers the High Court to quash proceedings, it also implicitly includes ancillary powers to modify or regulate trial procedures to prevent injustice. The Court observed that the legislature, through the BNSS, intended to streamline criminal trials and reduce unnecessary hardship on accused persons, particularly in non-heinous cases.
"The presence of an accused is not a statutory imperative in every case; it is a procedural safeguard that may be relaxed where representation is assured and the interests of justice are not compromised."
The Court emphasized that the accused persons were not charged with grave offences warranting mandatory personal attendance. It further noted that the State had not contested the request, indicating no public interest in compelling their physical presence. The Court held that allowing representation by counsel, coupled with a conditional obligation to appear if summoned, strikes a fair balance between the accused’s right to liberty and the court’s need for control over proceedings.
The Court also distinguished this from cases involving serious offences like murder or sexual assault, where personal presence is often indispensable for cross-examination or to assess demeanor. Here, the nature of the dispute and the absence of opposition from the State supported a liberal interpretation.
The Verdict
The petitioners won. The High Court held that personal appearance of accused persons Nos. 2 and 3 may be dispensed with, provided they are represented by counsel at all hearings. Accused No. 1 remains obligated to appear personally. The trial court may summon them if necessary, and failure to appear upon specific direction will permit proceedings to continue ex parte.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Representation Can Replace Personal Appearance
- Practitioners may now file applications under Section 528 BNSS seeking exemption from personal attendance for elderly, non-flight-risk accused in non-serious cases
- Must demonstrate: (a) cooperation with investigation, (b) no prior absconding, (c) availability of competent counsel
- State’s non-opposition strengthens the application but is not mandatory
Conditional Exemption Is the Norm, Not Exception
- Courts will impose conditions: (i) counsel must appear on all dates, (ii) accused must remain contactable, (iii) court retains power to summon
- Non-appearance upon specific order triggers ex parte proceedings - this is not a blanket immunity
- This applies only to accused, not complainants or witnesses
Judicial Discretion Must Be Reasoned
- Courts must record reasons for granting exemption, even if unopposed
- Blanket exemptions without conditions will be reversed on appeal
- This ruling does not override Section 205 BNSS (which permits exemption for accused in summons cases), but extends its logic to warrant cases
