The Supreme Court of India has observed that it is unnecessary to compel an accused person to personally attend every hearing of a criminal appeal when their sentence has already been suspended and bail has been granted. The remark was made while flagging a practice in one state where routine personal attendance was being demanded, even in cases where the convict was released on bail pending appeal.
Court’s Reasoning
The Bench noted that once a higher court has suspended sentence and allowed bail pending appeal, the accused need not be present at every hearing simply as a matter of routine, particularly when the bail conditions already ensure cooperation with the process.
Forcing physical presence in every sitting can be burdensome and may not advance the cause of justice where the appellant is able to be represented by counsel and is cooperating with the appellate process.
The Court also took note of the practice before High Courts and directed that its observations be communicated to the Chief Justices of High Courts for intimation to the subordinate judiciary, so that unnecessary appearance conditions are not routinely imposed.
Legal Implications
This development underscores that attendance requirements must be tailored to the facts and the bail conditions, and should not be imposed mechanically.
It balances the rights of the accused with the court’s interest in ensuring presence for key hearings, without converting bail into a de facto restriction that frustrates liberty beyond necessity.
