Evidence in trial

Thae advocate of the accused has to file an application to condone his absence before the court giving the said reasons.

If an accused under trial is remanded in judicial custody in another case in a different state, while prosecution evidence is pending for a long time in the present case, the court handling the pending trial has several legal remedies to proceed with the case.

Under Section 267 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, the court where the trial is pending may issue a production warrant (also known as a PT warrant or warrant under Section 267 CrPC) directing the authorities of the other state’s prison where the accused is lodged to produce him before the trial court on the scheduled hearing date. This is typically done to ensure that the pending trial does not get unduly delayed due to the accused’s custody in another jurisdiction.

If the accused cannot be produced physically due to logistical or security concerns, the court may consider conducting proceedings through video conferencing, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s guidelines in State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai (2003) 4 SCC 601. This ensures the accused’s presence for evidence recording while avoiding unnecessary delays.

Moreover, if the accused’s absence is prolonging the trial unnecessarily, the prosecution may request the court to invoke Section 299 CrPC, which permits the recording of evidence in the absence of the accused when he is absconding or cannot be brought before the court despite reasonable efforts. The evidence recorded under this provision can be used against the accused once he is available for trial.

The court also retains the discretion to bifurcate the trial under Section 317 CrPC if multiple accused are involved and the trial of the present accused is causing undue delay to the co-accused. However, such an approach depends on the nature of the offense and the stage of proceedings.

If the accused remains in prolonged custody in another state, the trial court may also issue directions to expedite his transfer through inter-state coordination mechanisms between prison authorities and under Section 406 CrPC, if a transfer of trial is deemed necessary.

In any case, the court will balance the right of the accused to a fair and speedy trial (Article 21 of the Constitution of India) against the need for judicial efficiency in disposing of pending matters. Therefore, appropriate directions will be issued to ensure that the trial is not indefinitely stalled due to the accused’s judicial custody in another case.

I am a New Delhi based lawyer, for further legal guidance on this matter, feel free to reach out at adv.vishesh@icloud.com.