Trial in Absentia: When Indian Courts Try Accused Who Aren't Present

Mumbai Police recently announced they would begin a trial in absentia against six Pakistani nationals accused in terror-related cases. The phrase made headlines, but what does it actually mean when a court tries someone who isn't even in the country?

A trial in absentia simply means conducting a criminal trial without the physical presence of the accused person. In normal circumstances, Indian law strongly favours the accused being present throughout their trial. This is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees fair procedure. The accused has the right to hear the evidence against them, cross-examine witnesses, and defend themselves personally.

But the law recognises certain exceptional situations where this isn't possible or where the accused deliberately avoids appearing.

Indian law allows trial in absentia primarily under Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (which replaced the old Code of Criminal Procedure). This provision permits the court to proceed even when the accused is absent, but only if two conditions are met: first, the accused must have been served notice of the trial and the charges against them; second, their presence must not be necessary for a fair trial at that particular stage.

Additionally, for proclaimed offenders (people who have absconded and against whom a proclamation has been issued), Section 84 of the BNSS allows attachment of their property and eventually trial in their absence after proper proclamation procedures are followed.

In cross-border cases involving terror accused or fugitives who have fled India, courts may proceed in absentia when extradition has failed or isn't feasible. The prosecution must prove they made genuine efforts to secure the accused's presence. Courts will examine whether notices were served through proper channels, whether extradition requests were made, and whether the accused is deliberately evading trial.

Suppose someone files a cheating case against a person who has fled to another country. Can the court try them in absentia? Not automatically. The complainant and prosecution must first demonstrate to the court that they attempted service of summons through proper legal channels, possibly through diplomatic means or mutual legal assistance treaties. The court will weigh whether proceeding without the accused serves the interests of justice or violates their fundamental right to defend themselves.

The key safeguards are strict. Even when trial proceeds in absentia, the accused retains the right to legal representation. A lawyer can appear on their behalf, cross-examine witnesses, and present a defence. If the accused is eventually apprehended or voluntarily appears, they can apply to have the trial reopened and be heard afresh on the evidence.

For terror-related cases involving foreign nationals in hostile countries, trial in absentia serves a specific purpose: it allows the judicial process to establish facts on record, examine evidence while witnesses are available, and deliver a verdict that can support future extradition requests or international legal cooperation. A conviction in absentia strengthens India's case internationally, even if immediate enforcement isn't possible.

What does this mean for ordinary Indians? While most of us will never face a trial in absentia, the principle matters. If you're ever summoned to court as an accused, ignoring those summons can have serious consequences. Courts may issue warrants, declare you a proclaimed offender, attach your property, and potentially proceed with trial in your absence. You lose the crucial opportunity to present your side of the story when it matters most.

If you receive a court summons, never ignore it. If you cannot attend due to genuine reasons like illness or being abroad, immediately inform the court through a lawyer and seek adjournment with supporting documents. Courts are generally accommodating when you show respect for the process.

Conversely, if you're a complainant and the accused is absconding, you can request the court to initiate proclamation proceedings and eventually seek trial in absentia, though you'll need to demonstrate genuine efforts to locate and serve notice to the accused.

The bottom line: Indian courts balance two competing principles. Every accused deserves to be present and defend themselves. But the justice system cannot be held hostage by those who deliberately evade it. Trial in absentia is the law's answer to that dilemma, used sparingly and with safeguards.

If you're navigating any criminal case, whether as complainant or accused, consult a verified advocate on Lex Now to understand your rights and the proper procedure.

This article is general legal awareness, not legal advice. Laws change and every case is different — consult a verified advocate on Lex Now for guidance on your situation.

Need advice on your situation?

Connect with a verified advocate on Lex Now for guidance specific to your case.