Act endangering life or personal safety of others
Section 125 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with act endangering life or personal safety of others. Whoever does any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to two thousand five hundred rupees, or with both, but— (a) wh The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
Whoever does any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to two thousand five hundred rupees, or with both, but—
(a) where hurt is caused, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both;
(b) where grievous hurt is caused, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both.
Section 125, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 336 Act endangering life or personal safety of others Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
How this offence is classified
From the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which classifies every offence under the Sanhita. Cognizable means a police officer may arrest without warrant; bailable means bail is a matter of right rather than of the court's discretion. This section is classified 3 ways.
| Offence | Punishment | Cognizable | Bailable | Triable by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Doing any act endangering human life or personal safety of others. | Imprisonment for 3 months, or fine of 2,500 rupees, or both. | Cognizable. | Bailable. | Any Magistrate. |
| Where hurt is caused. | Imprisonment for 6 months, or fine of 5,000 rupees, or both. | Cognizable. | Bailable. | Any Magistrate. |
| Where grievous hurt is caused. | Imprisonment for 3 years, or fine of 10,000 rupees, or both. | Cognizable. | Bailable. | Any Magistrate. |
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Commissioner of Police vs Shiv Singh
Decided under Indian Penal Code 336, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Acquittal or discharge in criminal proceedings does not per se entitle a candidate to consideration for public service appointment, particularly in police recruitment. The Screening Committee has discretion to assess suitability based on the nature of charges, circumstances of the case, and whether acquittal resulted from serious flaws in prosecution or hostile witnesses. Judicial review of such decisions is limited to grounds of mala fides, illegality, or mindlessness; courts cannot conduct intensive factual scrutiny or second-guess the suitability determination made by the designated public employer authority.
On this section: Act endangering life or personal safety; charged against Raj Kumar
-
Abbas Ahmad Choudhary vs State of Assam
Decided under Indian Penal Code 336, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal cases involving rape, the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and this principle applies equally to rape cases as to all other criminal offenses. While the statement of a rape victim must be given primary consideration, material inconsistencies between the victim's earlier statement (recorded immediately after the crime before a Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC) and later in-court testimony regarding a specific accused's involvement can create reasonable doubt about that accused's guilt. When such inconsistencies exist, and when corroborating circumstantial evidence (such as apprehension by police) suggests an accused was not present at the material time, the Court cannot convict the accused merely on the basis of the victim's contradictory testimony. There is no presumption that a rape victim would always tell the entire truth, and courts must apply the standard test of reasonable doubt to determine guilt.
On this section: Act Endangering Life or Personal Safety - Originally charged but focus of appeal was on rape conviction
-
Arsh @ Mohammad Kaif Khan vs The State of Madhya Pradesh
Decided under Indian Penal Code 336, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused in a serious case (involving communal violence and explosive substances) has already spent considerable time in pre-trial custody (approximately 22 months), and the trial is still ongoing with no imminent conclusion, continued judicial custody ceases to serve any legitimate purpose. Bail may be granted with conditions ensuring regular court appearance and prohibition of activities disrupting communal harmony, striking a balance between individual liberty and public order. The gravity of charges alone does not justify indefinite pre-trial detention if the detention itself is no longer proportionate to trial progress and the period already spent.
On this section: Covers acts that injured various persons during the riots
-
Dilip Sheshrao Chachane Etc vs State of Maharashtra
Decided under Indian Penal Code 336, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
For conviction under Section 149 IPC, three essential ingredients must be established: (i) Formation of an unlawful assembly, (ii) Commission of an offence by any member of that assembly, and (iii) The offence must have been committed in prosecution of the common object of the assembly or must be such as the members knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object. The mere fact that an offence results in death does not per se establish that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to commit murder; instead, the court must examine the nature of weapons used, the nature and location of injuries inflicted, and all surrounding circumstances to determine whether there was a preconceived intention to cause death. Absent clear and convincing evidence of such common object, conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC cannot be sustained, and the conviction should be reduced to Section 304-II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder).
On this section: Act endangering life, mischief, criminal intimidation - lesser convictions maintained for various accused persons
-
Harbans Lal vs State of Punjab
Decided under Indian Penal Code 336, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A revision petition challenging the grant of probation becomes infructuous and cannot be entertained once the probation period has been completed by the accused, as the court cannot grant the relief sought (cancellation of probation and enhancement of sentence) when the probation has already been undergone. In such circumstances, the court need not examine the legality or propriety of the original probation order.
On this section: Act endangering life or personal safety - used to convict accused with 6 months imprisonment
-
Shah Rukh Khan S/o. Meer Taj Mohammed vs State of Gujarat
Decided under Indian Penal Code 336, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
For an act to constitute criminal negligence under IPC Sections 336-338, the degree of negligence must be 'gross' or of a very high degree; mere promotion/waving at a crowd does not meet this threshold and cannot be deemed the 'causa causans' of a stampede where other intervening factors exist.
On this section: Negligent acts endangering life or causing hurt.
-
Ranjeet Yadav vs State of U.p.
Decided under Indian Penal Code 336, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An FIR disclosing prima facie cognizable offences cannot be quashed at the writ petition stage merely on the assertion that allegations are false and concocted. However, interim protection from arrest may be granted to an accused willing to cooperate with investigation, with the condition that the accused participates in the investigation and police conclude the investigation expeditiously.
On this section: Act endangering life or personal safety
-
Amit Kuri vs State of Rajasthan
Decided under Indian Penal Code 336, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the State assures the High Court that a criminal investigation is being conducted earnestly, arrests have been made, and adequate security arrangements are in place for the petitioner, the High Court will not exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to interfere with the investigation in the absence of specific grounds demonstrating abuse of process or injustice.
On this section: These sections were cited as the charges in FIR No. 62/2017. Section 336 relates to act endangering life or personal safety, Section 427 relates to mischief causing loss or damage, and Section 455 relates to lurking house-trespass or house-breaking.
-
Vijay Singh vs State of Rajasthan through Pp
Decided under Indian Penal Code 336, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A person with a history of criminal conduct and involvement in multiple prior criminal cases, particularly when such history demonstrates a pattern of habitual offending, is not entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Criminal Procedure Code, as the criminal antecedents constitute sufficient grounds for denial of bail.
On this section: Act endangering life or personal safety - related to firing the shot
-
Mr.Ponnan u/s.478 cr.p.c 614-24
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases where the offences charged are bailable in nature under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the accused has a legal right to bail, and the court should grant bail subject to reasonable conditions such as bond execution with sureties to ensure the accused's appearance in court.
On this section: One of the offences charged against the accused; classified as bailable.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… Case No. 584 of 2025. The revisionist challenges his summoning as an accused in connection with FIR No. 16/2024 registered at P.S. South Avenue under Sections 125(b) 3(5) and 125(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as "BNS"). The petition was instituted on 01.05.2025, arguments were heard on 31.07.2025, and the judgment is being pronounced on 18.08.2025. (ii) The factual background, as emerging from the record, pertains to an incident on …
Questions about Section 125
What have the courts held on Section 125 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Commissioner of Police vs Shiv Singh (25 Aug 2021) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 336, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Act endangering life or personal safety; charged against Raj Kumar. Another 9 judgments on this section are set out below, 4 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2009 to 2024.
Is Section 125 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Bailable, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Is Section 125 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita cognizable?
Cognizable. "Cognizable" means a police officer may arrest without warrant; "non-cognizable" that they may not. An offence under this section is triable by Any Magistrate.
How do I find court cases under Section 125 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BNS 125, section 125 BNS, section 125 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 125 b and bns 125a in hindi. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 10 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Commissioner of Police vs Shiv Singh (25 Aug 2021).
What should I read with Section 125 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
It carries forward IPC 336 (Act endangering life or personal safety of others), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 125 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 125 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 125, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 2. Definitions2199 words
- 356. Defamation1543 words
- 335. Making a false document1318 words
- 101. Murder1177 words
- 303. Theft1104 words
- 3. General explanations858 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.