Trial in Absentia under Section 356 BNSS — Allahabad HC Lays Down Step-by-Step Procedure in Ravi alias Ravindra Singh

This article is for educational and legal awareness purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or solicitation. Please consult a qualified advocate for advice on specific legal matters.

Overview

In Ravi alias Ravindra Singh v. State of U.P. & Another, 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 263, decided on 6 May 2026, Justice Praveen Kumar Giri of the Allahabad High Court described Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) as a “landmark” provision that, for the first time in independent India’s general criminal-procedure code, places trial in absentia of a proclaimed offender on a clear statutory footing. The judgment lays out a step-by-step procedural roadmap that trial courts must follow before invoking Section 356.

Background

The applicant had earlier been granted bail by the High Court in 2021. Charges were framed in his presence in February 2024, after which he stopped appearing before the trial court from October 2024 onwards. A non-bailable warrant (NBW) was issued by the Agra court, and the applicant moved the High Court under Section 528 BNSS seeking its quashing. The Bench used the occasion to examine the broader framework within which Section 356 BNSS is to operate.

What Section 356 BNSS Does

Section 356 BNSS permits a court, in defined circumstances, to conduct inquiry, trial, or pronounce judgment against a proclaimed offender in his absence. The provision is the procedural answer to a long-standing problem — absconding accused stalling criminal trials for years, sometimes decades, while witnesses become unavailable and evidence decays. It departs from the pre-BNSS position, under which proceedings would usually be stayed against an absconder until his arrest.

The Step-by-Step Procedure Laid Down

The Court emphasised that Section 356 BNSS is a measure of last resort, to be invoked only after the court has exhausted every coercive process available under the Sanhita. The Bench identified the following sequential stages:

Summons and bailable warrants — the trial court must first exhaust regular processes of summons and bailable warrants for securing the accused’s attendance.
Non-bailable warrants (NBWs) — where ordinary process fails, NBWs must be issued and meaningfully executed, with the court satisfying itself about bona fide attempts at execution.
Proclamation under Section 84 BNSS — where the NBW cannot be executed, the court may issue a written proclamation requiring the accused to appear at a specified place and time, after recording satisfaction that he has absconded or is concealing himself.
Attachment under Section 85 BNSS — at or after the proclamation stage, the court may order attachment of the absconder’s movable and immovable property, again on recorded satisfaction.
Prosecution under Section 209 BNS — Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 creates a substantive offence of failure by a proclaimed person to appear at the specified place and time; the State is expected to take this step rather than treat absconding as a mere procedural irritant.
Appointment of amicus curiae — before trial in absentia can begin, the court must appoint a competent amicus to represent the absent accused so that the trial does not proceed in a one-sided fashion.
Invocation of Section 356 BNSS — only when each preceding step has been genuinely exhausted may the court frame charges in absentia and proceed to record evidence and pronounce judgment.

The Bench underscored that mechanical movement to Section 356 — without exhausting the earlier stages — would itself be contrary to the statutory scheme and vulnerable to challenge.

Why the Sequence Matters

Trial in absentia is a serious procedural step. The absent accused does not cross-examine witnesses, does not lead defence evidence, and is convicted without being personally heard. To make such a trial constitutionally defensible, the Bench held that the State must demonstrate, on the record, that:

The accused was genuinely given every opportunity to participate.
The coercive process was applied seriously, not as a formality.
The accused’s absence is voluntary, not the result of administrative failure.
The defence has been adequately represented through amicus.

If these conditions are not met, a conviction in absentia would be liable to be set aside on appeal.

The Disposition

On the facts before it, the Court declined to quash the NBW issued by the Agra court. The applicant had been granted bail, had attended trial, and had then withdrawn from the process voluntarily. The judgment laid down general guidelines that go beyond the immediate case and are intended to guide trial courts across the State.

Significance

The Allahabad High Court’s intervention is one of the first high-court-level expositions of Section 356 BNSS since the Sanhita came into force. The judgment achieves three things:

It signals that trial in absentia is a real and usable tool against absconders, ending the pre-BNSS practice of effectively shelving such cases.
It places clear procedural safeguards on the route to that tool, ensuring that the trial that results is one a constitutional court can defend on appeal.
It reminds the State that absconding is itself a substantive offence under Section 209 BNS and must be prosecuted, rather than tolerated as a system-wide inconvenience.

Useful Resources

Disclaimer: The information provided on this website is for general legal awareness and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, advertisement, or solicitation. No reader should act or refrain from acting based on this information without seeking professional legal counsel. Advocate Akhil Singh and this website are not liable for any actions taken based on the content provided herein.