2026 Supreme(All) 481

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J. 
Ravi Alias Ravindra Singh - Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. And Another – Respondents 
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 7980 of 2026
Decided On : 05-05-2026

The court establishes that an accused released on bail who absconds must face defined legal procedures, including proclamation and property attachment. Under the new legal framework, trial in absentia is permissible for proclaimed offenders after satisfying statutory notice and procedural requirements to ensure the speedy conclusion of justice.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 84, 85, 92, 215, 232, 346, 356, 485, 486, 491, 492 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Section 209 - U.P. Police Regulations - Rules 215, 216 - Police Act, 1861 - Section 29 - Criminal proceedings - Procedure for absconding accused on bail - Mandatory adherence to timelines for investigation, inquiry, and trial process.

(B) Right to fair trial and trial in absentia - Introduction of Section 356 of the new code - Concept of trial in absentia for proclaimed offenders - Requirements include two consecutive warrants, proclamation, newspaper publication, and notification to relatives - Waiver of right to be present if accused absconds to evade trial.

(C) Procedural accountability - Obligations cast upon presiding officers, police officials, and public prosecutors to ensure methodical case management - Consequences for negligence and unreasonable adjournments - Importance of electronic process portals to maintain record and monitoring.

Facts of the case:
An accused, initially granted bail in a serious criminal case, ceased appearance before the trial court after the framing of charges. Despite being fully aware of the proceedings, the accused absconded, prompting the trial court to issue a non-bailable warrant. Subsequently, the trial court declared the accused a proclaimed offender under the relevant legal provisions and ordered the attachment of property. The applicant challenged the warrant issued, seeking to quash the order.

Findings of Court:
The Court observed that systemic failure to adhere to prescribed legal processes leads to undue delay. It held that the court must follow a structured hierarchy of procedures—NBW, proclamation, and attachment—to compel the attendance of absconding accused. The Court emphasized that the recent legislative changes mandate trial in absentia for proclaimed offenders to prevent the frustration of judicial processes, while placing strict accountability on police and prosecutors to update records and inform the court.

Issues: The primary issues addressed were the legality of the issued warrant/proclamation against an absconding accused on bail and the mandatory procedural framework required under the new criminal law codes to conclude trials where the accused deliberately evades the court's process.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that an accused released on bail who absconds violates the fundamental bond conditions, necessitating swift legal action as per the new code. The court held that the legislature introduced the concept of trial in absentia to address willful non-appearance. Provided that statutory requirements—such as publication and waiting periods—are satisfied, a trial may proceed in the absence of the accused to ensure timely justice.

Result: Application disposed of with the direction that the impugned order remain in abeyance for two months to provide a final opportunity for the accused to cooperate with the trial proceedings, failing which the trial court is at liberty to pass orders as per law.