Ravi Alias Ravindra Singh v. State of U.P. & Another, 2026

The matter arose from an application challenging a non-bailable warrant (NBW) issued by the trial court in Agra.

The applicant had earlier been granted bail in 2021, and therefore was initially participating in the trial process.

Charges were framed in his presence in February 2024, showing that the trial had already reached an advanced stage.

However, after October 2024, the accused stopped appearing before the trial court without justification.

Due to his continuous absence, the trial court issued non-bailable warrants, initiated proclamation proceedings under Section 82 CrPC, and also passed property attachment orders under Section 83 CrPC.

The High Court was required to examine not only the legality of the NBW but also the broader issue of delay in criminal trials caused by absconding accused persons.

The High Court held that Section 356 BNSS is a significant procedural reform that permits trial in absentia in cases of deliberate absconding.

It observed that when an accused is declared a proclaimed offender, and there is no reasonable possibility of securing his presence, the law treats such conduct as a voluntary waiver of the right to participate in trial proceedings.

The Court laid down a detailed procedural framework to ensure that trials in absentia are conducted in a fair, transparent, and structured manner.

It held that courts may proceed to record evidence, examine witnesses, and deliver judgment even in the absence of the accused, provided statutory safeguards are followed.

The Court emphasized the importance of using audio-video electronic recording systems to ensure accuracy and transparency in witness testimony.

It further directed that if the accused does not have legal representation, the court must appoint an amicus curiae at the expense of the State to protect the accused’s interests.

The Court mandated that trial in absentia cannot begin unless coercive measures such as issuance of at least two NBWs, proclamation proceedings, and property attachment are fully exhausted.

It also clarified that the trial should not commence unless at least 90 days have passed after framing of charges, ensuring sufficient opportunity for the accused to appear.

The Court further held that appeals against convictions in such trials are subject to strict statutory conditions under Section 356(7) BNSS, including the requirement that the accused must surrender within a prescribed period.

The judgment is significant because it operationalises Section 356 BNSS, providing a clear procedural roadmap for conducting trials in absentia.

It strengthens the balance between speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution and the rights of the accused, ensuring that justice is not delayed due to absconding behavior.

It prevents misuse of the criminal justice system by accused persons who intentionally evade proceedings to delay trials.

At the same time, it preserves fairness by mandating safeguards such as legal representation through amicus curiae and electronic recording of evidence.

The Court’s interpretation reinforces that constitutional rights are not absolute and can be reasonably restricted when an accused voluntarily evades judicial process.

It also provides clarity on procedural hierarchy by requiring strict compliance with NBW issuance, proclamation, and property attachment before invoking trial in absentia.

The judgment reflects a modern approach to criminal procedure by incorporating technology-based evidence recording mechanisms.

The judgment provides a comprehensive and structured framework for trial in absentia under the BNSS regime.

It ensures that absconding accused persons cannot obstruct the justice system while still maintaining procedural fairness and constitutional safeguards.

The ruling represents a balance between efficiency in criminal justice and protection of fundamental rights, particularly under Article 21.