The Madras High Court has strongly criticized the Special Court for Bomb Blast Cases in Chennai for its arbitrary handling of exemption petitions under Section 317 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The division bench, consisting of Justice M.S. Ramesh and Justice N. Senthilkumar, overturned the Special Court’s decision and recalled a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) issued against an accused, Mohammed Faruk.
Court’s Observations on the Special Court’s Approach
The court noted that the Special Court had consistently rejected exemption requests filed by the accused without applying judicial discretion. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that NBWs should not be issued mechanically and that courts must exercise their discretion judiciously when considering exemption pleas. However, the Special Court ignored these legal principles and dismissed the accused’s petition purely on the ground that similar applications had been made earlier.
“The Special Court has been consistently demonstrating insensitivity to settled propositions of law and rejecting petitions arbitrarily, solely based on the view that the accused is engaging in dilatory tactics,” the High Court remarked.
Case Background: Denial of Exemption and Issuance of NBW
Mohammed Faruk was one of the accused in a case pending before the Special Court, facing charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). When the trial was scheduled for January 30, 2025, he filed a petition under Section 317 CrPC seeking an exemption from personal appearance due to ill health.
Despite his medical condition, the Special Judge dismissed the plea, citing multiple prior exemption petitions and alleging an attempt to delay proceedings. Consequently, an NBW was issued against Faruk. Upon personally appearing before the court the same day and filing a petition to recall the warrant under Section 70(2) CrPC, his plea was again dismissed.
Madras High Court’s Verdict: Arbitrary Exercise of Power
Upon reviewing the Special Court’s orders, the High Court held that the rejection of Faruk’s petition was unjustified. The only reason cited for the dismissal was the accused’s prior exemption petitions, which, in the High Court’s view, did not automatically imply an attempt to delay the trial.
“The Special Court failed to consider that Section 273 CrPC allows evidence to be recorded in the presence of the accused, except where expressly provided otherwise, such as under Section 299 CrPC. Instead of presuming delay tactics, the Special Court should have utilized available legal provisions to proceed with the trial in the accused’s absence,” the bench stated.
The High Court further emphasized that issuing an NBW is a serious matter involving the accused’s personal liberty, and such orders should not be passed mechanically. “The Special Court must balance individual liberty with the public interest when deciding on NBWs,” it reiterated.
Supreme Court’s Guidance on Judicial Discretion
The judgment cited various Supreme Court rulings, reinforcing that courts should adopt a liberal approach in granting exemption from personal appearance when warranted by circumstances. The Supreme Court, in cases like Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, has repeatedly cautioned against the routine issuance of NBWs without proper justification.
Read also:- Madras High Court Rejects Ex-Serviceman's Plea on Havana Syndrome Allegations
Final Judgment: Recall of NBW and Judicial Caution
The High Court, while setting aside the Special Court’s order and recalling the NBW, directed trial courts to exercise judicial discretion carefully. “We hope the Special Court refrains from arbitrary actions in the future while handling exemption petitions and ensures trials progress without unnecessary disruption,” the judgment concluded.
