Allahabad High Court Streamlines Trial in Absentia Process for Proclaimed Offenders

The judgment was delivered in Ravi Alias Ravindra Singh v. State of U.P. and Another, where the applicant challenged the issuance of non-bailable warrants and subsequent proceedings initiated against him after he repeatedly failed to appear before the trial court despite being on bail.

Background of the Case

The case originated from an FIR lodged on 24 November 2020 under Sections 307 and 504 IPC (Sections 109 and 352 of BNS) against three accused persons, including the present applicant. After investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet on 20 March 2021, and cognizance was taken on 3 April 2021.

The applicant was later granted bail by the High Court on 8 December 2021. Subsequently, the matter was committed to the Sessions Court, and charges were framed on 14 February 2024 in the presence of the accused.

However, according to the prosecution, after framing of charges, the applicant began avoiding court proceedings. Though exemption applications were occasionally filed and allowed, the accused ultimately stopped appearing before the trial court. As a result, the trial court issued non-bailable warrants (NBWs), proclamation proceedings under Section 82 CrPC (Section 84 BNSS), and attachment proceedings under Section 83 CrPC (Section 85 BNSS).

The applicant approached the High Court under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of the non-bailable warrants and related coercive proceedings.

Applicant’s Arguments

The applicant argued that the trial court acted illegally by issuing a non-bailable warrant directly without first issuing a bailable warrant. It was further argued that since the applicant had already been granted bail, the proper course available to the court was under Section 89 CrPC (now Section 92 BNSS), which deals with arrest on breach of bail bond.

The counsel also contended that:

• No notice for forfeiture of bail bonds under Section 446 CrPC (Section 491 of BNSS) had been issued;
• Proceedings against sureties were not initiated;
• Attachment proceedings under Section 83 CrPC (Section 85 BNSS) were commenced prematurely;
• The statutory safeguards relating to cancellation and confiscation of bail bonds were not followed properly.

State’s Response

The State opposed the application and submitted that the accused deliberately avoided trial proceedings despite full knowledge of the case. It was pointed out that charges had already been framed in his presence and that the applicant repeatedly adopted delaying tactics.

The prosecution further argued that:

• NBWs were issued after repeated defaults;
• One NBW was even recalled earlier upon the applicant’s request;
• Despite multiple opportunities, the accused continued absconding;
• Proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC (Sections 84 and 85 BNSS) were initiated only after prolonged absence.

High Court Examines Conduct of the Accused

The High Court carefully examined the order sheets and found that the accused had remained absent continuously from 18 October 2024 onward. The Court noted that:

• NBWs were issued repeatedly for nearly two years;
• The accused ignored proclamation proceedings.
• He failed to appear even after publication under Section 82 CrPC (Section 84 BNSS);
• Ultimately, attachment proceedings under Section 83 CrPC (Section 85 BNSS) were initiated.

The Court observed that the accused was consciously evading trial and that such conduct could not be permitted to obstruct criminal proceedings indefinitely.

Personal Appearance and Exemption under BNSS

The Court examined Sections 228 and 355 BNSS, which correspond to Sections 205 and 317 CrPC, respectively. These provisions allow courts to exempt the personal appearance of an accused in appropriate circumstances if represented through counsel.

However, the Court clarified that:

• Personal appearance remains the rule.
• Exemption is discretionary.
• Courts may insist on appearance whenever necessary.
• An absconding accused cannot misuse the exemption provisions to derail trials.

Four Categories of Absconding Accused Identified

One of the most important aspects of the judgment is the categorisation of situations in which an accused may abscond during criminal proceedings. The Court identified four stages:

1. Accused absconding during investigation;
2. Accused absconding after summons despite not being arrested during investigation;
3. Accused released on bail during investigation who later absconds;
4. Accused absconding after framing of charges despite being on bail.

For each category, the Court prescribed detailed procedural steps to be followed by police officers, prosecutors, and trial courts.

Detailed Guidelines for Trial in Absentia

The judgment provides a comprehensive roadmap for conducting criminal proceedings against absconding accused persons under the BNSS framework.

Issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants

The Court explained that under Sections 75 and 92 BNSS, courts possess the authority to issue NBWs against accused persons who evade proceedings or violate bail conditions.

The Court emphasised that:

• Warrants may be issued where the accused deliberately avoids court appearance;
• The purpose is to compel attendance and ensure expeditious trial;
• Courts should not permit indefinite delay by absconding accused persons.

Proclamation Proceedings under Section 84 BNSS

The Court extensively discussed Section 84 BNSS (corresponding to Section 82 CrPC), which deals with proclamation against absconding persons.

According to the Court:

• A proclamation may be issued if the accused is absconding to avoid execution of warrants;
• Publication must strictly follow statutory procedures;
• The accused must be granted at least 30 days to appear;
• Failure to appear may result in declaration as a proclaimed offender.

The Court also clarified that non-appearance after proclamation may lead to separate prosecution under Section 209 BNS (corresponding to Section 174A IPC).

Attachment of Property

The High Court further explained the scope of Section 85 BNSS relating to attachment of property of proclaimed offenders.

The Court observed that:

• Courts may attach movable or immovable property of absconding accused persons;
• Attachment can extend beyond district boundaries;
• Perishable property may be sold immediately;
• Third parties may raise objections within six months.

The Court stressed that attachment proceedings are meant to compel appearance and preserve the authority of courts.

Proceedings Against Sureties and Bail Bonds

The judgment also contains an elaborate discussion on forfeiture and cancellation of bail bonds under Sections 491 and 492 BNSS.

The Court noted that:

• Upon breach of bond conditions, the bond and surety stand cancelled;
• Courts may recover penalty amounts as fines;
• Sureties may face imprisonment in civil jail if penalties remain unpaid;
• Fresh bail ordinarily requires new bonds and sureties.

The Court highlighted that these provisions ensure accountability of accused persons released on bail.

Trial Can Continue Despite Absence of Accused

A major feature of the ruling is the Court’s endorsement of the continuation of criminal proceedings even in absence of the accused after statutory compliance.

The Court directed that after exhausting coercive measures:

• Courts may appoint an amicus curiae for the absconding accused;
• Charges may be framed in presence of the amicus;
• Evidence may be recorded;
• Trial may proceed under Section 356 BNSS.

The Court emphasised that the criminal justice system cannot be held hostage by absconding accused persons.

Section 356 BNSS: A New Framework

The judgment repeatedly highlighted Section 356 BNSS, a new provision introduced under the BNSS that specifically deals with inquiry, trial, and judgment in absentia of proclaimed offenders.

The Court explained that this provision marks a significant departure from the earlier CrPC framework and seeks to:

• Prevent deliberate delay tactics;
• Enable completion of trials;
• Strengthen victim rights;
• Ensure timely justice delivery.

Monthly Monitoring of Execution Proceedings

The Court also issued directions regarding post-conviction monitoring. It directed that:

• Permanent warrants should be issued against convicted absconders;
• Trial courts must monitor execution efforts monthly;
• Police authorities should submit progress reports regularly;
• District Monitoring Cells should supervise execution proceedings.

This demonstrates the Court’s intention to ensure that judgments against absconders are effectively implemented.

Importance of the Judgment

This ruling is likely to become an important precedent regarding the newly enacted BNSS provisions on proclaimed offenders and trial in absentia.

The judgment is significant because it:

• Clarifies procedural safeguards under BNSS;
• Harmonises old CrPC provisions with the new framework;
• Prevents abuse of bail liberty;
• Protects victims from endless delays;
• Strengthens the efficiency of criminal trials.

The Court’s structured guidelines are expected to assist subordinate courts across Uttar Pradesh and potentially influence courts across India.

Balancing Rights of Accused and Victims

Importantly, the High Court attempted to maintain a balance between:

• Rights of accused persons to fair trial;
• Need for legal representation;
• Interests of victims;
• Public interest in speedy trials.

By directing appointment of amicus curiae and insisting upon procedural compliance, the Court ensured that trials in absentia do not become arbitrary or unfair.

Findings of the Allahabad High Court

After analysing the facts and statutory framework, the Court found no illegality in the proceedings initiated by the trial court against the applicant. It was observed that the accused had deliberately evaded the process of law despite repeated opportunities.

The High Court ultimately used the case as an opportunity to comprehensively explain the legal procedure governing proclaimed offenders and trial in absentia under the BNSS.

Click Here to Read the Official Judgment

Conclusion

The decision of the Allahabad High Court in Ravi Alias Ravindra Singh v. State of U.P. marks a major judicial interpretation of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, particularly Section 356 BNSS dealing with trial in absentia. The judgment lays down a detailed procedural roadmap for courts, police authorities, and prosecutors when dealing with absconding accused persons.

By streamlining procedures relating to warrants, proclamations, attachment of property, forfeiture of bail bonds, prosecution for non-appearance, and appointment of amicus curiae, the Court has attempted to ensure that criminal trials are not indefinitely stalled by accused persons who evade proceedings.

The ruling reflects a broader shift in Indian criminal procedure toward efficiency, accountability, and speedy justice, while preserving procedural safeguards and fair-trial rights.