[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Atul Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:14400) on 27 March, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:14400]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2129/2026
Atul Kumar S/o Raj Kumar, Aged About 70 Years, Resident Of
Raymond Showroom, Sector-17, 501, Plot.no.66, Mahatma Phule
Bhawan, Navi Mumbai, Vashi, Thane Maharastra
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Narendra Kumar Lodha Alias Narendra Lodha S/o Late
Hari Singh Lodha, Resident Of Narendra And Narendra
Farm House, Santosh Marg, Bapunagar, Bhilwara, Through
Power Of Attorney Holder Dinesh Kumar Lodha S/o
Bhanwar Singh Lodha, Resident Of 5-K-7/1, Rc Vyas
Colony, Bhilwara
----Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2132/2026
Atul Kumar S/o Raj Kumar, Aged About 70 Years, Resident Of
Raymond Showroom. Sector-17, 501, Plot.no.66, Mahatma
Phule Bhawan, Navi Mumbai, Vashi, Thane (Maharashtra).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Narendra Kumar Lodha Urf Narendra Lodha S/o Late
Hari Singh Lodha, Resident Of Narendra And Narendra
Farm House, Santosh Marg, Bapunagar, Bhilwara,
Through Power Of Attorney Holder Dinesh Kumar Lodha
S/o Bhanwar Singh Lodha, Resident Of 5-K-7/1, R C
Vyas Colony, Bhilwara.
----Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2149/2026
Smt. Seema Agarwal W/o Atul Kumar, Aged About 64 Years,
Resident Of Raymond Showroom. Sector-17, 501, Plot.no.66,
Mahatma Phule Bhawan, Navi Mumbai, Vashi, Thane
Maharastra.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Manju Rani Agarwal D/o Mahendra Jain, Resident Of
Narendra And Narendra Farm House, Santosh Marg,
Bapunagar, Bhilwara, Through Power Of Attorney
Holder Dinesh Kumar Lodha S/o Bhanwar Singh Lodha,
Resident Of 5-K-7/1, R C Vyas Colony, Bhilwara.
----Respondents
(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 03:31:38 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 07:05:30 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14400] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-2129/2026]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Charan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Order
27/03/2026
These criminal miscellaneous petitions have been filed by the
petitioners against the order dated 18.02.2026 passed by the
learned Special Judicial Magistrate (NI Act Cases) No. 5 Bhilwara,
whereby the permission sought by them to attend the Court
through video conferencing and through counsel for the purpose
of reading over the accusation in a case pending under Section
138 of the N.I. Act was rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are elderly persons residing in Mumbai. It is stated that
petitioner Atul Kumar is 70 years of age and his wife, petitioner
Seema Aggarwal, is 64 years old, and both are dependent on each
other. It is further submitted that petitioner Seema Aggarwal has
undergone knee surgery and has been advised rest; therefore, she
is unable to travel to Jodhpur to attend the criminal proceedings
pending against her. It is also submitted that petitioner Atul
Kumar is suffering from a severe slip disc issue, for which medical
documents have been placed on record, and he has also been
advised rest by his doctor.
Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are
not evading their appearance before the Court and, in fact, desire
that the trial court proceeds with the trial so that it may be
concluded within time. However, due to their inability to remain
(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 03:31:38 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14400] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-2129/2026]
physically present, the proceedings are being delayed. It is further
submitted that the matter is a summons case, and only the
accusation is required to be read over to the petitioners. They are
willing to appear through video conferencing, while their counsel
will be present before the Court. In such circumstances, the
accusation can be read over to them, and they will authorize their
counsel to sign on their behalf on the order sheet.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the
judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of K.V. Haneefa
vs. C.B.I. arising out of CRL.REV.PET No. 809 OF 2025 which
reads as under:-
"17. Comparing the phraseology used in Section
263(1) of BNSS with that of Section 240(1) of Cr.P.C,
the only addition is 'within a period sixty days from
the date of first hearing on charge'. Section 263(2) of
BNSS and Section 240(2) of Cr.P.C. are similarly
worded. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the
revision petitioner/accused No.14, as per Section
251(1) of BNSS, framing of charge in sessions cases
is permitted in the virtual presence of the accused.
Be it so, atleast virtual presence of the accused is
necessary, at the time of framing charge.
18. While addressing this question, it is not exactly
correct to say that framing charge under Section 263
of BNSS is in the physical presence of the accused,
while the general principle is that presence of the
accused to be secured during charge framing. Section
251(2) of the BNSS allows framing of charges in the
virtual presence of the accused in sessions trial. The
core principle is that, the accused should be informed
of the charges against them, and this is typically
done in their presence. Section 263 of BNSS outlines
the procedure for framing charges, and while the
Section emphasizes the importance of informing the
accused, it doesn't explicitly mandate physical
presence of the accused. Section 251(2) of BNSS,
allows framing of charge in the virtual presence of
the accused, in sessions trial. This means that if the
accused is represented by legal counsel, the court
can proceed with framing the charges even if the
accused is not physically present in the court room.
The primary purpose of framing charges is to inform
the accused of the specific allegations against them
so they can prepare their defense. This purpose can
(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 03:31:38 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14400] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-2129/2026]
still be achieved through virtual means if the accused
is properly represented. Minor irregularities in the
framing of charges, such as a brief absence of the
accused, do not necessarily invalidate the trial unless
the same would prejudice the accused's ability to
defend themselves, unless in the opinion of the
Court, a failure of justice, in fact, has been occurred
thereby, as could be seen from Section 465 of Cr.P.C.
and under Section 511 of BNSS read with Section
215 of Cr.P.C. and 238 of BNSS. In the instant case,
charge was framed by passing a lengthy order, after
hearing the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner/accused No.14 and thus, no prejudice or
failure of justice to be found."
The learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the prayer
made by the petitioners' counsel, considering that the matter
pertains to a summons trial.
This Court has considered the submissions made by learned
counsel for the petitioners and has perused the impugned order.
The substance of accusation is to be read out to the
petitioner under Section 274 of the BNSS as it is a summons case
triable by Magistrate. Section 251 BNSS provides for framing of
the charges for offences triable before the Court of sessions.
Section 251(2) clearly states that the charges framed shall be
read over and explained to the accused person present either
physically or through audio video electronic means and he shall be
asked to plead guilty or claim to be tried. In such circumstances,
the provisions of BNSS provide for a mode of reading over the
charges through audio-video electronic means when such process
can be adopted in a case triable by Court of Sessions, the same
mode is certainly available in the summons cases triable by
Magistrate, wherein the accusation are to be read over. This view
is further supported by the judgment of Hon'ble Kerela High Court
passed in the case of K.V. Haneefa (supra).
(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 03:31:38 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14400] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-2129/2026]
It is observed that the only ground for rejection of the said
application was that no documents were placed on record to show
that petitioner Seema Aggarwal was under treatment or that
petitioner Atul Kumar had been advised bed rest. It was also
noted that the matter has been pending since 2024 for the
presence of the accused.
However, the petitioners have placed on record medical
documents, including the surgery certificate of petitioner Seema
Aggarwal dated 16.03.2024. Considering the medical condition
and advanced age of the petitioners, and the fact that the case is
a summons case where the accusation can be read over through
video conferencing, this Court is of the view that the petitioners'
presence can be secured virtually through their counsel.
Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, these
criminal miscellaneous petitions are allowed, and the order dated
18.02.2026 passed by the learned trial court is set aside. The
petitioners are permitted to appear through video conferencing,
and the accusation shall be read over to them in presence of their
counsel who shall sign the order sheets.
With these observations, the criminal miscellaneous petitions
stand allowed.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J
24-Taruna/-
(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 03:31:38 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
