Telangana High Court Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan on Friday quashed the CBI Special Court order rejecting Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy’s petition seeking exemption from personal appearance in the CBI court in different cases.
The CJ said in his order that an authorised counsel should appear for Mr. Jagan in the CBI court on the day of hearing, delivering verdict in a criminal petition filed by Mr. Jagan. However, the CJ made it clear that Mr. Jagan should appear before the CBI court if the latter felt his appearance was necessary on a particular date of hearing.
In 2011, the CBI registered a criminal case against Mr. Jagan and others following direction of the High Court in a PIL petition. Eventually, he was arrested along with others. Eleven charge-sheets were filed against him subsequently. The CBI court enlarged him on condition bail in 2013. After his release, supplementary charge-sheets were filed and Enforcement Directorate too registered cases against him.
From 2013, Mr. Jagan had filed different criminal miscellaneous petitions seeking relaxation of different conditions of his bails. At the time of release, the petitioner was MP and later in 2014 became leader of the Opposition of Andhra Pradesh. His petition for exemption from court appearance while being opposition leader was rejected.
However, in 2019 Mr. Jagan became Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh. He filed a petition in CBI court again praying for the relief of exemption from personal appearance. This plea too was rejected by the CBI court.
Challenging the CBI court order, Mr. Jagan approached Telangana High Court seeking exemption from personal appearance under Section 205 of Criminal Procedure Code. Delivering judgment in the petition, the CJ found fault with the Principal Special Judge of the CBI court that “in criminal proceedings, trial should be conducted in presence of the accused and, therefore, his request for personal appearance exemption should not be considered”.
The CJ said the CBI court judge failed to appreciate the principle that trial had to be conducted in the presence of the accused to ensure the latter got a fair trial. Provision for exemption of the accused from personal appearance was for the benefit of the accused and could not be interpreted to cause hardship and prejudice to the accused, the order said.
