30.07.2026 Sl. No.04. D/L. Mithun. Ct.No.29. CRR/2422/2026 Seher Ali Mallick @ Seher Ali Mollick Vs. The State of West Bengal Mr. Debmalya Ganguli, Mr. Soumalya Ganguli …for the petitioner Mr. Rajdeep Biswas, Ms. Anindita Mukherjee …for the State In this application, the petitioner has assailed a portion of the order dated 08.06.2026 passed by the trial Court namely learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Second Court, Purba Bardhaman in Sessions Case No.54 of 2026, whereby the petitioner despite having already complied with the conditions imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, while being granted permission to travel abroad, has been directed to furnish a supplementary affidavit containing disclosure of his exact foreign residential and employment address, employment contract and specifying the authenticated platform or electronic line for his virtual appearance as per Chapter II of the “Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2021” (in short VC Rules, 2021) and thereby declared petitioner‟s undertaking dated 03.06.2026, filed in compliance with Sessions Judges order as incomplete one.. Being aggrieved by the said portion of the order dated 08.06.2026, which pertains to imposing condition “specifying the authenticated platform or electronic line for his virtual appearance as 2 per Chapter II of the Video Conferencing Rules”. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a daily wage earner, employed in Saudi Arabia and is facing criminal proceeding arising out of FIR no.117 of 2025. By an order dated 27.04.2026, learned Sessions Judge permitted the petitioner to travel abroad for employment, subject to specific safeguards including furnishing FDR of Rs.2,00,000/- and an undertaking to remain available throughout the trial either personally or through video conferencing, except at the stage of recording his statement under Section 278 BNSS and at the time of pronouncement of judgment and also on an undertaking in the form of no objection in recording of evidence in his absence. It is submitted that the petitioner has duly complied the aforesaid conditions. It is submitted that learned Transferee Trial Court, by the said portion of impugned orders insisted upon fresh disclosure relating to the petitioner‟s foreign residential address, employment contact and technical particulars for virtual appearance, thereby imposing additional conditions which is prejudicial for the interest of the petitioner and which practically amounts to denial of the permission granted by the Sessions Judge, in the interest of protecting petitioner‟s right of earning livelihood. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has no objection in complying the other portions of the order, except the above quoted portion, which has been passed practically criticizing the order of the learned Sessions Judge. Therefore, the only limited grievance of the petitioner with respect to the 3 impugned order is about the complying of that part of onerous conditions, imposed by the learned Trial Court to specify the authenticated platform or electronic line for his virtual appearance during trial despite compliance with the conditions imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Purba Bardhaman. In this context, learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the travel permission passed by the learned Sessions Judge on 27.04.2026 is a reasoned order on merit and, therefore, learned transferee Trial Court had no occasion to impose any further condition which may amount to denial of granting such permission and, therefore, said portion of the order is perverse being contrary to the spirit of the order of learned Sessions Judge who has granted liberty to him to travel abroad for his employment. He further argued that once the petitioner has been permitted by the Sessions Judge to travel abroad upon imposition of specific conditions, the learned Trial Court being the Transferee Court is left with no other alternative but to accept the affidavit/undertaking dated 03.06.2026 filed by the petitioner, in compliance with all the conditions imposed by the Sessions Judge. He further submits that the learned Trial Court cannot sit over any appellate proceeding and there is no provision under the BNSS, 2023 which delineates such power to the Trial Court nor he can impose additional condition after reviewing the order of the Sessions Judge. In this context, the Trial Court though relied upon the judgment of Parvez Noordin Lokhanwalla Vs. State of 4 Maharashtra & Anr. reported in (2020) 10 SCC 77 and Mahesh Kumar Agarwal Vs. Union of India & Anr. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2887 but said judgments are completely misplaced in terms of the facts of the present case. He further submits that it is well-settled that the conditions imposed by the Court should not be so onerous or disproportionate as to render the grant of such liberty illusory or to infringe the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. In the instant case, learned Sessions Judge has already exercised his judicial discretion and granted the petitioner permission to travel abroad after imposing specific safeguards. Therefore, the Trial Court had no reason to introduce fresh and additional obligation not contemplated by the parent order. He further submits that the impugned order has also relied upon the V.C. Rules 2021 and thereby misdirected itself by directing the petitioner to specify the authenticated communication point line for his virtual appearance during trial by filing supplementary affidavit. The petitioner in this context submits that Chapter II of the V.C. Rules is applicable mainly when a witness or a person accused of an offence is to be examined. Such a contention gains from Rule 5.1 of the VC Rules wherein the provision itself makes it clear by using the word „may‟ in respect of appointment of a remote point coordinator. The “remote point” has also been defined in Rule 2 sub-Rule X which is a place where any person or persons are required to be present or appear through a video link and Rule 2 sub-Rule XII defines the term “required 5 person” which includes (a) a person who is to be examined, (b) in whose presence certain proceedings are to be recorded or conducted, (c) an Advocate or a party in person who intends to examine a witness, (d) Any person who is required to make submission before the Court and (e) any other person who is permitted by the Court to appear through video conferencing. In the instant case, the petitioner has been permitted to travel abroad by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 27.04.2026 and, therefore, the petitioner is a “required person” in the instant case. Rule 12.1 specifically enumerates that the said chapter is applicable without prejudice to the procedure indicated elsewhere in the VC Rules, qua specific instances in which proceedings are conducted via video conferencing. Chapter II clearly indicates a specific instance, i.e., when a witness or an accused has to be examined. In the instant case, the Trial in Sessions Case No.54 of 2026 is yet to commence. Therefore, he added that at this juncture, there is no room for doubt that the right to travel of an accused during the pendency of a criminal case, assumes prime importance in the light of Article 21 of the Constitution, and such fundamental right to earn livelihood cannot be curtailed by the learned Trial Court. Moreover, the Court below had failed to consider the rule provided under Chapter IV of the VC Rules as Rule 14.3 of the VC Rule is squarely applicable for any stage of virtual hearing of the proceeding. Learned Sessions Judge, Purba Bardhaman in his aforesaid order has clearly laid down a condition that the 6 petitioner/accused has to remain present on the date of recording of his statement under Section 278 BNSS and on the date of delivery of judgment. Moreover, if the accused is required to be examined by the learned Trial Court at any stage during the trial except the stages mentioned in the order dated 27.04.2026, the same would necessarily be preceded by a reasoned order and in such instance, the rules prescribed under Rule 5 of Chapter II of VC Rules shall be applicable. Therefore, as the petitioner has already complied with the remaining directions of the impugned order by filing a supplementary affidavit dated 07.07.2026, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State leaves the prayer made by the petitioner to the discretion of the Court. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties. The travel permission order dated 27.04.2026 has been passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Purba Bardhaman on merit wherein the application dated 24.02.2026 preferred by the petitioner seeking permission to travel abroad was granted. Moreover, the order of learned Judge categorically recorded that learned Public Prosecutor before the learned Trial Court did not dispute or raise any objection with regard to the affidavit/undertaking dated 03.06.2026 filed by the petitioner/accused in Sessions Case No.54 of 2026. Therefore, it appears that the learned Sessions Judge has taken care of prosecution interest while granting permission to the petitioner and thereby he has clearly laid down the conditions that the 7 petitioner/accused has to remain present on the date of recording of his statement under Section 278 BNSS and on the date of delivery of judgment. Moreover, learned Counsel for the petitioner has rightly pointed out that even if the accused is required to be examined by the Trial Court at any stage during the trial, in addition to the stages mentioned in the order dated 27.04.2026, the same can be granted by the rules prescribed under Rule 5 of Chapter II of the VC Rules. Therefore, I find that the additional conditions imposed in the impugned order is excessive, unnecessary and uncalled for at this stage. Therefore, CRR 2422 of 2026 is allowed. As a sequel, the following portion in the order dated 08.06.2026 “and specifying the authenticated platform or electronic line for his virtual appearance as per Chapter II of the Video Conferencing Rules” shall stand deleted and be treated as non-est in the order and is not required to be complied by the petitioner at this stage. It is further clarified that the charge hearing and subsequent proceedings shall be guided by Rule 14.3 of the VC Rules unless otherwise directed by the Trial Court to secure attendance of the petitioner during trial and in that event Rule 5.1 for witness examination or examination of the accused shall be followed. Parties to act on a server copy of this order duly collected from the official website of the Hon‟ble High Court, Calcutta. ( Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J. ) 8