Latest Judgement

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

Allahabad High Court·6 May 2026

Court

Allahabad High Court

Date of Decision

6 May 2026

Judges

Justice Praveen Kumar Giri

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Facts of the Case

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.

Whether Section 356 BNSS permits continuation of criminal trial in absentia against a proclaimed offender who deliberately avoids arrest and court proceedings?
Whether an accused who absconds from trial proceedings can be treated as having waived his right to personal presence during trial?
Whether courts are required to exhaust all coercive mechanisms such as NBWs, proclamation orders, and attachment proceedings before invoking trial in absentia?
Whether procedural safeguards like issuance of repeated warrants and public proclamation are mandatory prerequisites under criminal law?
Whether appellate remedies in cases of conviction in absentia are restricted under Section 356(7) BNSS, including conditions for maintainability?

The Court held that trial in absentia under Section 356 BNSS is legally valid and constitutionally permissible when an accused deliberately absconds.
It held that absconding from trial proceedings amounts to a deemed waiver of the right to personal presence.
It further held that such trials are valid only when strict procedural safeguards such as NBWs, proclamation, and legal representation are strictly followed.

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.