Bail application dismissed for non-appearance, but limited liberty granted to reapply after appearance before trial court.

A bail rejection for non-appearance was found not to suffer from illegality or perversity because personal presence was required for hearing and disposal of the application. Prior protection orders had continued only up to the stated date, so the applicant's absence before then was not treated as unlawful; however, the bail request could not be decided without her appearance. Taking into account her medical condition and earlier protection, limited liberty was granted to appear before the trial court, seek fresh consideration of bail, and remain protected from coercive action until then.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order rejecting the bail application for non-appearance of the applicant suffered from illegality or perversity, and whether any further liberty or protection was required to be granted.

Analysis: The applicant had been protected by prior orders of the higher court up to 13.1.2023, and her non-appearance before that date was not treated as unlawful. However, the bail application filed on 13.1.2023 could not be decided without her presence, as personal appearance was required for hearing and disposal of the bail request. The impugned order therefore disclosed no infirmity, illegality, or perversity. At the same time, the applicant's medical condition and earlier protection orders were taken into account for granting limited liberty to appear before the trial court and seek fresh consideration of bail.

Conclusion: The challenge to the impugned order failed, but the applicant was granted liberty to appear before the trial court within the stipulated period, file a fresh bail application, and remain protected from coercive action until then.

---