Ahmedabad: Gujarat High Court quashed a city sessions court’s order framing charges against accused in their absence, as one of them was in jail and unwell, while the other was absconding. The charges were framed without the prosecution opening the case itself, HC noted.High court ordered the trial court to undertake the charge-framing process again because the earlier proceeding was conducted without following the procedure of granting the accused an opportunity to seek discharge from the case, and of explaining the charges to the accused and recording their plea. Court said that the trial court had gone ahead with the process without passing a judicial order in the presence of the accused, which is a must.The case was lodged by Ramol police in Sep 2025 against Sangramsinh Sikarwar and five others for alleged kidnapping for ransom and criminal conspiracy. Sikarwar is lodged in prison and one of the accused is absconding. The sessions court framed charges in the case on May 12 in the absence of two accused. Sikarwar challenged the charge-framing order on the ground that the mandatory requirement of Section 249 under BNSS was not followed, that the public prosecutor had not described the charges based on evidence against the accused while opening the trial.Sikarwar submitted that he was unwell on the day of framing of the charges and was not brought to court; neither was he presented before the court through video-conferencing. His signature was obtained on a blank piece of paper. He further produced evidence about him seeking an adjournment.After the hearing, Justice S V Pinto noted that the Rojkam indicated that the prosecutor did not open the case by describing the charge and stating the evidence on which he relied to prove the offence against the accused.The judge further said, “The record does not satisfactorily indicate that the learned trial court thereafter undertook the sequential exercise contemplated under Sections 250 and 251 of the BNSS after affording an effective opportunity of hearing to the concerned accused; hence, the procedure adopted by the learned trial court, therefore, cannot be approved.”
