Non-attendance in obedience to an order from public servant
Section 208 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with non-attendance in obedience to an order from public servant. Whoever, being legally bound to attend in person or by an agent at a certain place and time in obedience to a summons, notice, order, or proclamation proceeding from any public servant legally competent, as such public servant, to issue the same, intentionally omits to attend at that place or time o The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
Whoever, being legally bound to attend in person or by an agent at a certain place and time in obedience to a summons, notice, order, or proclamation proceeding from any public servant legally competent, as such public servant, to issue the same, intentionally omits to attend at that place or time or departs from the place where he is bound to attend before the time at which it is lawful for him to depart,—
(a) shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both;
(b) where the summons, notice, order or proclamation is to attend in person or by agent in a Court with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both.
Illustrations.
(a) A, being legally bound to appear before a High Court, in obedience to a subpoena issuing from that Court, intentionally omits to appear. A has committed the offence defined in this section.
(b) A, being legally bound to appear before a District Judge, as a witness, in obedience to a summons issued by that District Judge intentionally omits to appear. A has committed the offence defined in this section.
Section 208, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 174 Non-attendance in obedience to an order from public servant Text carried over almost unchanged 98%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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 2 ways.
| Offence | Punishment | Cognizable | Bailable | Triable by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Non-attendance in obedience to an order from public servant. | Simple imprisonment for 1 month, or fine of 5,000 rupees, or both. | Non-cognizable. | Bailable. | Any Magistrate. |
| If the order requires personal attendance, etc., in a Court | Simple imprisonment for 6 months, or fine of 10,000 rupees, or both. | Non-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.
-
Union of India vs Padam Narain Aggarwal Etc
Decided under Indian Penal Code 174, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A court cannot grant blanket anticipatory bail protecting an accused from arrest for any non-bailable offence, nor can it impose conditions such as prior notice before arrest on the statutory power of arrest vested in investigating authorities under section 104 of Customs Act. Anticipatory bail must be specific to identified offence(s), based on applicant's reasonable apprehension of arrest for a non-bailable offence, and cannot include conditions that interfere with or obstruct the legitimate investigative authority and statutory powers of arrest. The jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail is discretionary but must be exercised within statutory limits and cannot be used to impose judicial obstacles to investigation.
On this section: Offences for absconding or refusing to be produced. Court noted these were grounds for criminal complaints filed against respondents for non-cooperation with Customs inquiry.
-
Sushila Devi vs State of Rajasthan
Decided under Indian Penal Code 174, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Once a charge-sheet is filed after completion of investigation by the investigating agency in the competent court, the process of monitoring by the Supreme Court for the purpose of ensuring the investigating agency's proper performance comes to an end. Thereafter, all matters relating to the trial of the accused, including matters falling within the scope of Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, shall be dealt with exclusively by the competent trial court. The Supreme Court shall not continue to monitor the trial phase, as the Constitution envisages an independent and impartial tribunal (the trial court) for dispute resolution, and judicial monitoring of the trial would constitute an improper interference with the trial court's inherent jurisdiction and discretionary authority. The remedy for any error committed by the trial court lies in appeal or judicial review, not in continued Supreme Court intervention.
On this section: Unnatural death procedures
-
Mohd Juned Shaikh vs The State of Gujarat State of Gujarat Secreatary
Decided under Indian Penal Code 174, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the trial court's conviction and sentence are based on credible evidence and proper legal analysis, and the appellate court (High Court) has not found sufficient grounds to overturn such conviction, the Supreme Court will restore and uphold the conviction. The burden lies on the appellant to demonstrate substantial legal or factual errors in the trial court's judgment. In cases where the appellate authority (CBI) has not pursued appeals in the High Court, and the accused has completed their sentence, the Supreme Court will not interfere with the conviction. Grounds for reinvestigation must be substantial and not merely speculative.
On this section: Applied in case of Mohd. Sheikh for causing disappearance of evidence; separate conviction maintained
-
Sanju vs State of Haryana
Decided under Indian Penal Code 174, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases where a petitioner has no criminal antecedents, has already undergone a substantial portion of the sentence, and the underlying offence is related to a specific incident (such as an accident), the High Court may exercise its revisional jurisdiction to modify the sentence to the period already undergone, particularly when further imprisonment would serve no penological purpose.
On this section: Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant - the substantive offence for which the petitioner was convicted
-
Lalit Yadav vs State of U.p. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
Decided under Indian Penal Code 174, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused has already been enlarged on bail in all related cases and the conditions under Section 19(4) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities Prevention Act, 1986 are satisfied, bail should be granted in the main case as well, subject to strict conditions ensuring appearance and compliance with trial proceedings, in accordance with the principle that bail is the rule and committal to jail is the exception.
On this section: Punishment for non-appearance in response to proclamation; imposed as consequence of bail violation
-
Omveer Singh vs State of U.p.
Decided under Indian Penal Code 174, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a co-accused person with a similar role in the crime has already been granted bail by the court, the principle of bail parity requires that another accused with similar involvement should also be considered for bail on similar grounds, provided other relevant factors such as period of detention and likelihood of misuse are also favorable. Bail can be granted at the prima facie stage without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, subject to appropriate conditions to ensure court attendance and prevent abuse of bail liberty.
On this section: Failure to appear in obedience to proclamation - consequence of bail misuse
-
Kapil Kumar vs State
Decided under Indian Penal Code 174, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A person who has been declared as a Proclaimed Offender under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is not entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., regardless of whether the offences technically fall within the specific categories enumerated in Section 82(4) Cr.P.C. The procedure for issuing Non-Bailable Warrants and initiating proclamation proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. in police cases does not require prior issuance of summons and bailable warrants, and the Magistrate has inherent power under Section 73 Cr.P.C. to issue warrants for non-bailable offences when the accused is evading arrest. In economic offences of large magnitude affecting the economic fabric of society, the power to grant anticipatory bail must be exercised sparingly.
On this section: Punishment for non-appearance in response to proclamation; Court discussed differential punishment for non-appearance under Section 82(1) (3 years) versus Section 82(4) (7 years) proclamations
-
Kamlesh Kumar Lodhi vs State of U.p.
Decided under Indian Penal Code 174, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When co-accused persons with identical roles in a narcotic drug trafficking case have been granted bail by the same court, and the applicant has no direct recovery of drugs, no criminal history, and has been in pre-trial detention for over seven months, bail should be granted applying the principle of parity, subject to stringent conditions ensuring the applicant's presence before court, cooperation in trial, and non-tampering with evidence. The mere fact that applicant was found inside a vehicle carrying commercial quantity of narcotic drugs, without direct recovery from the applicant, does not create an absolute bar to bail under Section 37 NDPS Act when considered against the totality of circumstances including parity with similarly situated co-accused.
On this section: Proceedings for non-appearance after proclamation; mentioned in bail conditions as consequence of breach
-
The State of Maharashtra vs Arshad Khan Pathan
Decided under Indian Penal Code 174, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Criminal process cannot be issued under Sections 174 and 187 IPC against a public servant for non-attendance at a meeting when: (1) the complainant has violated mandatory notice requirements prescribed in applicable circulars; (2) the accused employee is subject to service regulations of his own employer requiring prior permission to leave office; and (3) the notice given (telephonic message) is insufficient to comply with both the notice requirements and the employee's employer regulations. The complainant's own procedural violations negate the criminal liability of the accused.
On this section: Relates to neglect or refusal by a public servant to perform a duty imposed by law. The court found this section was not attracted because the respondent was not properly summoned and had valid reasons for non-attendance.
-
Sunil Pandey vs State of U.p. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
Decided under Indian Penal Code 174, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When witness statements recorded during investigation under Section 180 CrPC establish that the alleged victim's death was accidental rather than resulting from criminal acts alleged by the prosecution, and the trial court has failed to consider such evidence in rejecting a bail application, the appellate court should set aside the bail rejection and grant bail to the appellant, particularly where the appellant has no criminal history, the charge sheet has been submitted, and there is no risk of evidence tampering.
On this section: Bail condition: trial court may initiate proceedings if appellant fails to appear after proclamation under Section 82 CrPC
-
SANJEEV@BITTU vs State of Haryana
Decided under Indian Penal Code 174, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving proclaimed persons convicted under Section 174-A IPC, the appellate court has discretion to modify the sentence from imprisonment to fine when it finds that imprisonment would not serve any useful purpose and when the larger interest of justice would be better served by imposing a monetary penalty instead, provided the enhanced fine is proportionate to the offence and the appellant's circumstances.
On this section: Conviction under this section for absconding and concealment to avoid arrest. The court upheld the conviction, finding that the prosecution had led reliable and trustworthy evidence establishing the appellant's guilt under this section.
-
Irfan vs State of U.p.
Decided under Indian Penal Code 174, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving serious offenses under special criminal legislation such as the U.P. Gangster and Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Act, bail may be granted when, after considering the nature of accusations, evidence, severity of punishment, character of the accused, custody duration, likelihood of trial presence, and public interest, the court determines it is a fit case for bail, provided stringent conditions are imposed to ensure court presence and prevent bail misuse.
On this section: Applied as a consequence for bail misuse and failure to appear on proclamation; proceedings can be initiated under this section
-
Imran vs State of U.p.
Decided under Indian Penal Code 174, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In bail applications involving serious charges under the Gangster Act, the court must balance the severity of the offense and public interest against the accused's right to bail by considering the nature of accusations, evidence, character of the accused, duration of pre-trial detention, and reasonable possibility of securing trial attendance. When these factors collectively indicate it is a fit case for bail, the court may grant bail with stringent conditions to ensure trial attendance, prevent witness tampering, and protect public interest, without expressing opinion on the merits of the case.
On this section: Applied as condition for failure to appear after proclamation; court warned of prosecution under this section for bail misuse
-
Swikar Luthra @ Sonu vs State
Decided under Indian Penal Code 174, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving serious criminal allegations and where the accused has a history of being a Proclaimed Offender with multiple prior criminal cases registered against him, bail should be denied as the gravity of allegations and the accused's criminal antecedents demonstrate a risk to the administration of justice and the likelihood of non-appearance.
On this section: Offence related to non-appearance in court; cited as one of the charges against the petitioner
-
Nitin vs State of U.p.
Decided under Indian Penal Code 174, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Even in cases involving serious offences under the Excise Act and IPC (Sections 420, 482), bail may be granted when the trial status is unclear and the accused has already undergone substantial pre-trial detention, provided stringent conditions are imposed to ensure presence during trial and prevent abuse of bail liberty.
On this section: Applied as consequence for non-appearance after proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C.
-
Directorate of Revenue Intelli vs Vivek Nagpal
Decided under Indian Penal Code 174, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a respondent has successfully challenged the initiation of criminal proceedings through a revision petition and the trial court has subsequently cancelled all further proceedings and discharged the surety, a subsequent order of the trial court granting a final opportunity for prosecution evidence becomes infructuous and should be quashed, as the proceedings have been brought to a close by the earlier order of the High Court.
On this section: Offence of non-appearance in response to summons - cited as basis for prosecution of respondent
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.
Questions about Section 208
What have the courts held on Section 208 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Union of India vs Padam Narain Aggarwal Etc (03 Oct 2008) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 174, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Offences for absconding or refusing to be produced. Court noted these were grounds for criminal complaints filed against respondents for non-cooperation with Customs inquiry. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 3 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2025.
Is Section 208 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Bailable, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Is Section 208 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita cognizable?
Non-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 208 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 208, section 208 BNS, section 208 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 208 and 210. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Union of India vs Padam Narain Aggarwal Etc (03 Oct 2008).
What should I read with Section 208 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
It carries forward IPC 174 (Non-attendance in obedience to an order from public servant), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 208 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 208 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 208, 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.