Delhi High Court
Rekha Kasana vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 11 September, 2018
$~89
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 11.09.2018
+ CRL.M.C. 4587/2018
REKHA KASANA ..... Petitioner
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr.Rajesh Anand, Advocate with Mr.Gaurav
Adlakha, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr.Kamal Kumar Ghai, Addl. PP for the State.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
11.09.2018
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
Crl.M.A.31753/2018 (exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Crl.M.C.4587/2018 & Crl.M.A. 31754/2018 (stay)
1. Petitioner impugns the order dated 24.07.2018 and order dated
28.07.2018 whereby the application of the petitioner seeking
exemption from personal appearance was rejected and Non Bailable
Warrants were issued against the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a
permanent resident of Canada and travels to India for the purposes of
participating in the Trial. He submits that no condition was imposed in
the order granting bail that petitioner has to seek permission from the
Trial Court to travel abroad. However, by way of abundant
precaution, an application was filed for seeking permission to travel to
Canada. He submits that application got rejected, however, in view of
the fact that the petitioner has minor children, who are permanent
resident of Canada, the petitioner had to urgently leave for Canada.
Thereafter, subject exemption application was filed, but the same was
rejected and Non Bailable Warrants were directed to be issued.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
proceedings are at an interlocutory stage and an application under
section 91 Cr.P.C. is under consideration and thereafter arguments on
charge have to take place.
4. Learned counsel undertakes on behalf of the petitioner that no
adjournment shall be sought from the trial Court for the purposes of
addressing arguments on the application under section 91 Cr.P.C. or
for argument on framing of charge on the ground of personal absence
of the petitioner. He further submits that when the matter is listed for
framing of charge, the petitioner undertakes to be present before the
Trial Court personally.
5. Learned APP submits that in case exemption is granted to the
petitioner, there is a likelihood that the proceedings before the Trial
Court may get delayed.
6. In view of the undertaking given by the petitioner, which is
hereby accepted by the Court, I am of the view that there will be no
impediment in the Trial or in the Trial Court in considering the
application under section 91 of the Cr.P.C. and hearing arguments on
charge, if petitioner is represented through counsel and does not seek
an adjournment on the ground of her personal absence.
7. Petition is accordingly disposed of granting exemption to the
petitioner from personal appearance before the Trial Court through
counsel at the time of hearing of arguments on application under
section 91 Cr.P.C. as well as on framing of charge. It is clarified that
the petitioner shall be personally present in the Court on the date fixed
by the trial court for framing of charge.
8. In view of the above, the impugned orders are set aside and
NBWs issued against the petitioner are recalled. The pending
application stands disposed of.
9. Order Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
SEPTEMBER 11, 2018
ab
