1 17.wp.518.2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.518 OF 2026 Viral Prafulchandra Sanghavi .Vs. State of Maharashtra and another Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order Mr. M.D. Patel, Advocate for applicant. Mr. K.R. Lule, A.P.P. for non-applicant/State. Mr. S.D. Kalyani, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. DATE : 28/08/2026 1. Petitioner has filed the present petiton thereby challenging the order below Exh.53 dated 19.07.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamptee in R.C.C. No.59 of 2015, rejecting the application for exemption under Section 205 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The petitioner herein has challenged the said order before the Revisional Court at Nagpur by filing a Criminal Revision Application No.249 of 2025. The learned Revisional Court vide its judgment and order dated 26.02.2026 rejected the said revision by taking into consideration the progress of the trial and also the discretion to be exercised by the learned Magistrate under Section 205(2) of the Cr.P.C. 3. Mr. Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application is filed for permanent exemption only on the ground that the petitioner is required to be present before the Court on each and every 2026:BHC-NAG:11574 2 17.wp.518.2026.odt occasion, even though his presence is not required for further proceedings of the matter. The criminal case is of the year 2015 and from that time onwards, the accused is continuously following the matter with due diligence. The petitioner has a family consisting of an 80 years old mother and all the time, the petitioner is required to travel from Mumbai to Nagpur for the same. Mr. Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that the application was thus filed to grant exemption till the final conclusion of the matter. The learned counsel further submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court has time and again laid down that the aspect of personal appearance of the accused is less important than the aspect of functioning of the proceedings and therefore, prayed that in each and every occasion, the presence of the accused is not required and hence the applicant may be exempted from appearance in the said case. 4. Mr. Kalyani, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner cannot authorize the counsel to take evidence in his absence and that the petitioner is not entitled for exemption as the petitioner has violated the direction issued by this Court vide order below Exhs.60 and 65, imposing cost upon the petitioner. Merely the petitioner being a resident of Mumbai cannot be a condition for grant of permanent exemption. The learned trial Court has exempted the petitioner as and when the occasion had arisen for personal appearance on several such occasions. However, the petitioner, on one or the other 3 17.wp.518.2026.odt grounds is making such applications thereby causing delay in conducting the trial. The application was therefore rightly rejected by the learned trial court vide order dated 19.07.2025. 5. The revision filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 19.07.2025, being Criminal Revision Application No.249 of 2025 was also rejected by the learned Revisional Court vide order dated 26.02.2026, holding that the trial is at the stage of evidence and the presence of the petitioner is necessary for recording of evidence, as the law contemplates the presence of the accused at the time of recording of evidence. 6. I have gone through the order dated 19.07.2025 passed by the learned trial Court rejecting the application filed for grant of permanent exemption. I have also gone through the order dated 26.02.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Revision Application No.249 of 2025. The application filed by the petitioner shows that petitioner has specifically prayed for grant of permanent exemption under Section 205(1) of the Cr.P.C. Both the learned Courts below have applied their mind and found that there is no such provision for grant of permanent exemption from appearance in the trial Court. The applications as and when are filed by the accused, are to be decided on their own merits. 7. The application under Section 205(1) was filed by the petitioner seeking permanent exemption to the accused in exercise of powers under Section 205(1). 4 17.wp.518.2026.odt The learned trial Court after taking into consideration the powers under Section 205(1) has observed that there is no special case made out by the accused so as to grant him permanent exemption. The provision of Section 205 shows that it is the discretion of the Magistrate to direct the personal attendance of the accused if it was necessary to enforce the attendance of the accused in the manner as provided under Section 205. 8. The impugned order dated 19.07.2025 passed by the learned trial Court, the dates and the exhibits filed by the present petitioner from the year 2015 are taken into consideration. There are so many instances recorded by the learned trial Court wherein the petitioner is exempted from personal appearance in exercise of the powers under Section 205(1) of the Cr.P.C. 9. The learned Revisional Court has also taken into consideration the fact that it is a pure discretion of the trial Court to entertain an application under Section 205. The learned Revisional Court has also considered that there is no case made out for granting permanent exemption to the present applicant from appearance in the trial. It is also noted by both the learned trial Courts below that the charge could not be framed till date due to the non- cooperation of the present petitioner, who had sought exemption on one or the other grounds. The said exemptions have also been considered whenever necessary and appropriate order was passed by the learned trial Court 5 17.wp.518.2026.odt by exempting the present petitioner from the personal appearance. 10. Thus, taking into consideration the observations made by both the learned trial Courts below, the petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference of this Court under its extraordinary or supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is therefore devoid of substance and merit and is therefore dismissed. 11. However, the petitioner is at liberty to move appropriate application for exemption under Section 205, as and when necessary and the trial Court shall pass appropriate orders if such applications for exemption is filed by the petitioner, considering the same on its own merits. (MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.) C.L. Dhakate Signed by: Mr. C.L. Dhakate Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 02/09/2026 19:19:00