Personal appearance required for bail consideration; rejection for non-appearance upheld, with limited liberty to reapply granted.

Where personal appearance was required for consideration of a bail application, the trial court's rejection of the request for non-appearance was not found to be illegal, perverse, or infirm. The Court nevertheless took note of the applicant's ailments and physical condition and granted limited liberty to appear before the trial court and file a fresh bail application within the stipulated time, with coercive action restrained until then.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order rejecting the applicant's bail application for non-appearance was infirm, and whether any protective liberty ought to be granted.

Analysis: The applicant challenged the trial court's refusal to entertain the bail application on the ground that she had not appeared in person. The Court held that personal appearance was required for disposal of the bail request and that, on the facts placed before it, the impugned order did not suffer from any infirmity, illegality, or perversity. At the same time, the Court took note of the applicant's ailments and physical condition, which had been considered earlier, and found it appropriate to grant limited liberty to appear before the trial court and file a fresh bail application within the stipulated time. Till such appearance, coercive action was restrained.

Conclusion: The challenge to the trial court order was rejected, but the applicant was given time to appear before the trial court and seek bail afresh, with interim protection against coercive steps for the limited period granted.

Ratio Decidendi: Where personal presence is required for consideration of a bail application, the trial court's rejection of the application for non-appearance is not infirm, though limited protective liberty may still be granted on exceptional facts.

---