M.R. Shah JUDGMENT
M.R. Shah, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 10.09.2018 passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No. 3880 of 2016, by which the High Court has dismissed the said application and has rejected the prayer of the Appellant for dispensation with his personal appearance/attendance in a case that pertains to the charge-sheet bearing C.C. No. 12 of 2013, one of the original Accused in the aforesaid case has preferred the present appeal.
3. That the Appellant is Accused No. 3 in the case pertaining to the charge-sheet bearing C.C. No. 12 of 2013 pending before the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad. That the Appellant was summoned by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 13.05.2013 for the offences punishable Under Sections 120-B read with Sections 420, 409 Indian Penal Code and Sections 9, 12, 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) and Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. That, by an order dated 07.06.2019 the Appellant has been granted the bail. However, pursuant to the directions issued by the High Court, the Appellant is required to attend the learned Trial Court on every Friday. It is the case on behalf of the Appellant-original Accused No. 3 that since 2013 the Appellant has been remaining present before the learned Trial Court on every Friday.
3.1. That the Appellant submitted an application before the learned Trial Court Under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for dispensing with his personal appearance/attendance. It was submitted on behalf of the Appellant that he is the Director on the boards of several companies and is pre-occupied with the management and attending day-to-day affairs on account of business exigencies of the companies. It was also submitted on behalf of the Appellant that for attending the learned Trial Court on every Friday, he is required to travel from Delhi to Hyderabad spending not less than two days. Therefore, it was the case on behalf of the Appellant that on account of posting the case on every Friday, he has been facing undue hardship in meeting his business commitments, in addition to continuous financial loss being caused to him. Therefore, it was prayed to dispense with his appearance permitting his counsel Sri Bharadwaj Reddy to appear on his behalf.
3.2. The said application was opposed by the Respondent-CBI. It was submitted on behalf of the CBI that the grounds on which the Appellant has requested to dispense with his appearance before the learned Trial Court are not germane and cannot be a ground to dispense with his appearance before the learned Trial Court Under Section 205 Code of Criminal Procedure. It was also contended on behalf of the CBI that the Appellant is facing very serious charges/offences. The learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad dismis........