Mandatory sequence of Sections 249 to 251 BNSS must be followed for valid framing of charge.

The applicant (Accused No. 1) was arrested on 10.09.2025 in connection with FIR No. 11191024251 for offenses under Sections 140(2), 296(b), 115(2), 351(3), and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

On 12.05.2026, the Additional Sessions Judge framed charges (Exh. 27) against the applicant and five others

The applicant challenged this order via a revision application, contending that he was in judicial custody and unwell on the date of framing charges, and was not produced physically or via video conferencing

Furthermore, he alleged that Accused No. 2 was absconding, and the mandatory procedure for opening the case by the prosecutor was bypassed

Section 249 mandates that the prosecutor open the case by describing the charge and proposed evidence

Section 250 provides for the consideration of discharge after hearing submissions

Section 251 requires the Court to frame a written charge and read/explain it to the accused present physically or through audio-video means

Section 308 BNSS, which mandates evidence be taken in the presence of the accused

Section 355 BNSS regarding the limited power to dispense with attendance

State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh and Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal to emphasize the Judge’s duty to sift and weigh evidence rather than acting as a "post office"

Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander regarding the scope of revisional jurisdiction to correct patent procedural defects

The High Court observed that the Rojkam (court diary) failed to reflect that the Prosecutor opened the case as per Section 249 BNSS

The Court emphasized that Sections 249, 250, and 251 constitute a mandatory "sequential statutory procedure" that cannot be rearranged for convenience

Regarding the applicant's absence, the Court noted that while Section 355 BNSS allows trials to proceed in the absence of an accused under specific conditions, such absence must be addressed by a reasoned judicial order

Framing charges while the applicant was in custody but not produced physically or virtually—and while Accused No. 2 was absconding—violated Section 251(2), which requires the charge to be read and explained to the accused to record their plea

The court held that mechanically framing charges against absent or absconding accused without following statutory safeguards regarding their presence constitutes a material departure from the law

The matter was remanded to the Trial Court to proceed afresh from the stage of Section 249 BNSS with directions to: (i) ensure the lawful presence/participation of the accused; (ii) follow the sequential procedure of opening the case (Sec. 249) and hearing discharge arguments (Sec. 250); (iii) strictly comply with Section 251(2) if charges are framed; and (iv) deal with the absconding accused in accordance with BNSS provisions