Recently, the Allahabad High Court dealt with a plea challenging the issuance of non-bailable warrants and subsequent coercive proceedings against an accused in an attempt to murder case. The matter raised important questions regarding the procedure to be followed when an accused, already enlarged on bail, stops appearing before the trial court. The Court examined the scope of various provisions under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), relating to warrants, proclamation, attachment of property, forfeiture of bail bonds, and trial in absentia.
Brief Facts
The case arose from an FIR registered under Sections 307 and 504 IPC against the applicant and others. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and cognizance was taken by the trial court. The applicant was later granted bail by the High Court and the matter was committed to the Sessions Court where charges were framed in his presence. However, according to the record, the applicant repeatedly failed to appear before the trial court on several dates. Initially, a non-bailable warrant issued against him was recalled, but after continuous absence from proceedings, fresh non-bailable warrants were issued followed by proclamation proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and attachment proceedings under Section 83 Cr.P.C.
Contentions of the Applicant
The Applicant contended that the trial court acted illegally by directly issuing a non-bailable warrant without first issuing a bailable warrant. It was argued that since the applicant had already been granted bail, the proper course available to the court was under Section 89 Cr.P.C. (now Section 92 BNSS), dealing with arrest on breach of bond. The applicant further submitted that no proceedings for forfeiture of bail bonds under Section 446 Cr.P.C. had been initiated before coercive action under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. was taken. It was also argued that attachment proceedings should only follow after due compliance with statutory safeguards relating to cancellation and confiscation of bail bonds.
Contentions of the State
On the other hand, the State opposed the plea by asserting that the applicant deliberately avoided trial despite being fully aware of the proceedings. The prosecution submitted that charges had been framed in his presence and that he repeatedly sought exemptions to delay the trial. It was argued that after recall of the earlier warrant, the Applicant again absconded and remained absent for a prolonged period, compelling the trial court to initiate coercive measures. The State maintained that the impugned orders were passed strictly in accordance with law to ensure expeditious completion of the criminal trial.
Observation of the Court
The Court observed that the applicant was continuously absent from trial proceedings despite having knowledge of the case and earlier appearing before the Sessions Court after grant of bail. The High Court noted that after framing of charges, the applicant initially sought exemptions from personal appearance, but later stopped participating in the proceedings altogether. Referring to the conduct of the accused, the Court remarked that the applicant had “played hide and seek with the trial court” and deliberately avoided the judicial process.
The Court further emphasized that the BNSS provides a complete mechanism to deal with absconding accused persons and ensure that criminal trials are not indefinitely delayed. It observed that “to ensure the attendance of the accused and the expeditious conclusion of the trial, the court concerned shall adhere to the prescribed statutory procedures without delay.” The Court explained that where an accused released on bail fails to appear, the trial court is empowered to issue warrants, initiate proclamation proceedings, forfeit bail bonds, and proceed with attachment of property in accordance with law.
While interpreting Sections 84 and 85 BNSS, the Court held that if an accused conceals himself to avoid execution of warrants, proclamation proceedings can validly be initiated. The Court stated that “if the Court has reason to believe that a person is absconding to avoid execution of a warrant, a proclamation may be issued,” and continued non-appearance can also attract prosecution under Section 209 BNS along with attachment proceedings. The judgment also elaborated upon the statutory framework governing trial in absentia, forfeiture of bonds, and duties of courts in dealing with proclaimed offenders.
Decision of the Court
The High Court dismissed the application seeking quashing of the non-bailable warrant and related coercive proceedings. It held that the trial court had followed the procedure prescribed under law and rightly initiated proceedings against the applicant due to his persistent absence from the trial.
Case Title: Ravi Alias Ravindra Singh v. State of U.P. and Another
Case No.: Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 7980 of 2026
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Praveen Kumar Giri
Advocate for the Applicant/Appellant: Sri Sanjay Singh
Advocate for the Respondent: Sri Pankaj Kumar, A.G.A.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
