Why is it in news ?
- Delhi Police invoked Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for the first time.
- Against Jitendra Mehto, accused of murder and evading arrest.
- The provision enables trial in absentia, marking a significant shift under the new criminal law framework.
Relevance
GS2 – Governance / Polity
- New criminal procedure architecture under BNSS.
- Due process concerns: rights of absconding accused vs Article 21.
- Oversight on police powers; risk of misuse in politically sensitive cases.
- Judicial scrutiny of absentee trials; alignment with global standards.
- Impact on pendency reduction and court efficiency.
GS2 – Federalism
- Harmonisation of State police functioning under new central law.
- Centre–State friction potential in high-profile cases.
What is Section 356 (BNSS)
- Enables trial of an absconding accused without their presence.
- Preconditions:
- Accused must be declared a proclaimed offender.
- Must have absconded or evaded arrest despite repeated summons/warrants.
- Objective: Prevent accused from stalling trials and ensure timely justice.
Key features of Section 356
- Court may:
- Conduct trial in absence of the accused.
- Record evidence, examine witnesses, and pass judgment.
- Assign legal aid counsel to represent the absconding accused.
- Safeguards:
- Public notice, proof of intentional evasion, right to re-opening of trial upon arrest.
Difference from old CrPC
- CrPC allowed declaring someone a proclaimed offender (Sections 82–83) but did not permit full trial in absentia.
- BNSS introduces a complete absentee-trial mechanism, inspired by European systems.
- Supports BNSS goals:
- Time-bound trials,
- ** Victim-centric justice**,
- Reduced judicial delay.
Application in the Delhi cases
- Protest-related case:
- Officials were obstructed; pepper spray allegedly used.
- Accused evaded notices; police sought Section 356 to prevent delay.
- Murder case:
- Accused absconding; Section 356 triggered to continue trial.
Legal and constitutional analysis
Merits
- Addresses chronic problem of absconding accused.
- Strengthens victim’s right to speedy justice (Article 21; Hussainara Khatoon).
- Prevents deliberate stalling of criminal proceedings.
Concerns
- Risk of misuse in politically sensitive cases.
- Could impact fair hearing if safeguards not strictly followed.
- Requires robust judicial oversight in declaring someone absconding.
Judicial position (likely)
- SC has upheld flexible modes of trial (Praful Desai, video trials).
- Will insist on procedural safeguards to uphold Article 21.
Administrative significance
- Helps police tackle habitual evaders.
- Strengthens enforcement of summons/warrants.
- Reduces pendency caused by non-appearance of accused.
- Supports the BNSS’s time-bound trial architecture.
Impact on criminal justice system
- Faster disposal of serious offences (murder, organised crime).
- Reduces backlog linked to absconding behaviour.
- Enhances accountability in politically sensitive or public-order situations.
- Moves the system toward certainty of trial, not merely certainty of arrest.
