Photo: TrendSPLEND via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0)
Judgment Intelligence
Petition AllowedVikram Singh Indroi & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
2025:RJ-JD:15452
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 320/2023
- Court
- Rajasthan High Court
- Date of Decision
- 7 March 2025
- Bench
- Justice Farjand Ali
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India — Articles 21, 226; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 273
Final Outcome
Writ petition allowed. The respondent authorities were directed to make a suitable arrangement in Central Jail for the petitioners to attend their criminal trials through video conferencing; the order applies to all ongoing proceedings and any future matters on the same issue. The stay petition was disposed of (paras 7-9).
Key holdings
- An accused cannot be physically present at several simultaneous trials; his absence leads to adjournments and delay (para 3).
- Section 273 CrPC permits evidence to be taken in the pleader's presence when the accused's personal attendance is dispensed with (paras 3, 5).
- Jail authorities must ensure the accused attends through video conferencing where his presence is necessary (para 6).
- Gujarat and Jharkhand have amended Section 273 for video linkage; the Court asked Rajasthan to consider a CrPC amendment (paras 5-6).
Brief Facts
Six petitioners lodged at Central Jail, Jodhpur, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking permission to attend the criminal trials pending against them through video conferencing (para 1). According to the order, the petitioner faces FIRs registered across Rajasthan, and their number may grow (para 2). By an earlier order of 23.08.2024, the High Court had dealt with the multiple FIRs against the accused alleging financial crimes, which had led to 259 cases in various districts; it grouped the cases by geographical proximity and transferred them to specific district courts for consolidated trials, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations (para 2).
Court's Findings
The Court found that it is not feasible for an accused to be physically present at several places at the same time; when proceedings run simultaneously, his absence leads to adjournments and unnecessary delay (para 3). Section 273 CrPC requires evidence to be taken in the presence of the accused or, when his personal attendance is dispensed with, in the presence of his pleader, so there is no legal impediment where the accused is represented; if required, the jail authorities can secure his presence by video conferencing and keep the proceedings from being rendered idle (para 3). Non-appearance may result from law-and-order needs, transport from jail to court, the unavailability of a police escort or other logistical constraints, and without video conferencing the trials could take decades (para 4). Gujarat (2017) and Jharkhand (2016) have amended Section 273 to allow electronic video linkage; Rajasthan has framed video-conferencing rules but has not amended the CrPC (para 5). The Court expected the State Government to consider an amendment letting proceedings continue in the lawyer's presence when a jailed accused's presence is not mandatory, and required jail authorities to secure the accused through video conferencing where his presence is necessary (para 6).
Legal Principle
An accused facing trials in many courts at once cannot be expected to appear physically in all of them. Where his presence is necessary, the jail authorities must secure it through video conferencing so that trials are not adjourned for his absence; Section 273 CrPC allows evidence in his pleader's presence once personal attendance is dispensed with (paras 3, 6).
