Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Trial Court Order Directing Personal Appearance Of Former Visva Bharati University VC In Case Under SC/ST Act

The Calcutta High Court has set aside an order passed by a Special Court under the Atrocity Act, 1st Court, Suri, calling for the personal appearance of former Visva Bharati University Vice-Chancellor Professor Vidyut Chakraborty in a case against him under Section 500 of IPC (defamation) read with Sections 3(1)(r)(v)(p)(s) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

In setting aside the trial court's order calling for personal appearance, a single bench of Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta, held:

The petitioner herein has filed an application under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 07.10.2023 praying for exemption of personal appearance.  In the light of the above discussions, this Court does not have any other option but to set aside the impugned order. The learned Trial Court is directed to hear the parties and dispose of the application under Section 205 of the CrPC in accordance with law without insisting upon physical appearance of the petitioner before the Ld. Trial Court.

Brief Facts

In July 2023, Dr Prashan Meshram was working at Visva Bharati had filed a complaint against then-VC Chakraborty, and Mahua Banerjee in-charge of Public Relations Officer for the alleged humiliation he had to endure in a meeting in June 2023, when the accused abused him for filing a complaint to the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and further uttered abusive remarks on his protest.

It was alleged that the accused had also identified all the officers who belonged to Reserved Category by saying 'you are Scheduled Castes', 'you are OBC', 'you are Scheduled Tribes' etc. and directed his secretary to not allow these persons to contact him on his phone. 

It was further alleged that the accused had given false information of the complainant's involvement in financial defalcation to the media, to insult and humiliate him in the public eye, as well as severely damaged his career prospects.

These factors led to the registration of the aforesaid case against the petitioner. 

The case was subsequently investigated, and the trial court directed for the petitioner's appearance while granting bail to the other accused who were present before it. 

The petitioner thereafter filed an application under Section 205 CrPC for exemption from personal appearance and the trial court directed that such an application would be taken up once he appeared before the court. 

It was submitted that the petitioner was now retired and lived in Delhi, being a senior citizen who was afflicted with illness and hence sought exemption from personal appearance like the other accused had. 

It was argued that the trial court could not compel the appearance of the petitioner when there was an interim order not to take coercive steps passed by the High Court. 

It was argued that the maximum sentence in the present offence was five years of imprisonment and that the petitioner had cooperated with the investigation. 

Petitioners submitted that the trial court had whimsically kept the 205 CrPC application pending and that it neither accepted nor rejected the application but kept insisting on his personal appearance which was not acceptable in law. 

Counsel for the opposite party submitted that the accused was not complying with the trial court's simple direction to appear at the first instance before the 205 CrPC application would be considered. 

It was argued that the application was not rejected but the trial court had simply insisted on the presence of the petitioner at the first instance due to the seriousness of the offence. 

State submitted that there was notice issued against the petitioner and thus he must have had to appear before his appication for exemption of personal appearance could be considered. 

The point of maintainability was also raised since the other accused had appeared before the court to obtain bail, and thus the petitioner would have to do so too. 

Court's Verdict

Upon hearing the plea, the Court was left to adjudicate on the issue of whether the petitioner's personal attendance could be exempted even without insisting on his personal presence before the court. 

It found that the petitioner had been granted an interim order against coercive action, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court.

It was further held that the offence the petitioner was accused of did not fall under Category 'C' of the SC/ST Act and hence there was no bar on being granted anticipatory bail. It observed:

Under the above circumstances as well as the grounds set forth by the petitioner in an application filed under Section 205 CrPC, this Court does not find any reason why the Ld. trial Court is insisting the petitioner/accused to be present personally on the date fixed.  

Court held that the trial court should exercise its discretional powers under Section 205 CrPC according to the rules of reasons and justice and not in any arbitrary manner, thus considering cases where inconvenience may be caused to the accused. 

In setting aside the trial court order and directing it to consider the petitioner's application under Section 205 CrPC within one-month from date, the Court directed the accused to file an affidavit of his real difficulties to be personally present in Court. He shall assure that no prejudice caused to him in any manner, by dispensing with his personal presence during such questioning and further undertake that he would not raise any grievances on that score at any stage of the case.

The real purpose is to proceed with the trial smoothly and without prejudice to the parties, it added.

 Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 21

Case: Professor Bidyut Chakraborty Versus The State of West Bengal & Anr.

Case No: C.R.R. 5023 of 2023