Allahabad HC Explains Procedure For Trial Of Proclaimed Offenders Under Section 356 BNSS; Says Absconding Accused Deemed To Have Waived Right To Be Present

In an important ruling interpreting the newly enacted Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has laid down a detailed procedural framework governing “trial in absentia” against proclaimed offenders who deliberately evade criminal proceedings. The judgment was delivered on 5 May 2026 by Justice Praveen Kumar Giri in Ravi @ Ravindra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (Application under Section 528 BNSS No. 7980 of 2026). The Court used the occasion not only to decide the individual petition but also to clarify how trial courts across the State must implement Section 356 BNSS, one of the most significant procedural changes introduced under India’s new criminal law regime. 

The case arose from a challenge to coercive proceedings initiated by the trial court after the accused repeatedly failed to appear despite the process having been issued. While dealing with the challenge, the High Court examined the legislative framework under the BNSS and noted that under the earlier criminal procedure system, trials often remained stalled for years when accused persons absconded. To remedy this, Parliament introduced Section 356 BNSS, titled “Inquiry, trial or judgment in absentia of proclaimed offender.”

The Court explained that Section 356 BNSS permits a criminal court to proceed with trial, record evidence, and even pronounce judgment in the absence of an accused person, but only after strict statutory safeguards are satisfied. The provision applies where a person has been declared a proclaimed offender, has absconded to evade trial, and there is no immediate prospect of arrest. In such circumstances, the law treats such conduct as a waiver of the accused’s right to be physically present during trial.

Justice Giri clarified that before invoking Section 356, the accused must first be declared a proclaimed offender under Section 84 BNSS, which deals with proclamation against absconding persons (corresponding to Section 82 CrPC). Thereafter, the trial court must comply with the mandatory safeguards prescribed under Section 356(2), including:

1. Issuance of two consecutive non-bailable warrants, with at least a 30-day interval between them;

2. Publication of a notice requiring appearance in a national or local newspaper;

3. Service of information, wherever possible, upon the accused’s family members or close associates;

4. Affixation of notice at the accused’s last known residence and the concerned police station.

   
   

The Court further emphasized that under the proviso to Section 356(1), trial in absentia cannot begin until 90 days have elapsed from the date of framing of charges. Additionally, under Section 356(3) BNSS, if the absconding accused is not represented by a lawyer, the court is duty-bound to appoint a defence counsel at State expense to preserve the fairness of the trial. The Court also noted another significant safeguard under Section 356 that if such an accused is convicted in absentia, an appeal ordinarily cannot be entertained unless the accused first appears or surrenders before the appellate court, though the statute provides an extended limitation period of three years for filing such appeal.

Calling Section 356 a “landmark provision,” the Allahabad High Court observed that the objective of the BNSS is to ensure that criminal justice does not collapse merely because an accused chooses to flee. The Court held that the new law creates a procedural “Lakshman Rekha” for timely completion of criminal trials, balancing the accused’s right to a fair trial with the victim’s and society’s right to timely justice. It also directed prosecuting authorities and trial courts to ensure strict compliance with statutory timelines in serious criminal cases.

The ruling is among the earliest and most detailed judicial interpretations of trial in absentia under BNSS, and is likely to serve as a guiding precedent for subordinate criminal courts across the country.