Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions
Section 221 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions. Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions, 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 and five hundred rupees, or with both. The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions, 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 and five hundred rupees, or with both.
Section 221, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 186 Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions Text carried over almost unchanged 97%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 1
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.
| Offence | Punishment | Cognizable | Bailable | Triable by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Obstructing public servant in discharge of his public functions. | Imprisonment for 3 months, or fine of 2,500 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.
-
Pramod Kumar vs State(gnct) of Delhi
Decided under Indian Penal Code 186, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Police officer witnesses cannot be automatically discredited solely on the ground that they are official witnesses. Their testimony must be evaluated on the same standards of veracity, credibility, and reliability as any other witness. If, after careful scrutiny of evidence, the court finds police testimony to be reliable and trustworthy, the court can act upon such testimony. The quality and strength of evidence is more important than the quantity of evidence or the source thereof. In the present case, the consistent testimony of multiple police witnesses, combined with ballistic evidence (FSL report on the country-made pistol, test fire results, matching cartridge evidence) and post-mortem findings (gunshot wound characteristics and direction), collectively and conclusively establishes that the accused (appellant) fired the fatal shot from the country-made pistol recovered from his custody, causing the death of Constable Maharaj Singh. The appellant's alternative defense that another police officer (Samar Singh) fired the fatal shot is rejected as lacking credibility and being contradicted by material evidence.
On this section: Obstructing public servant in discharge of public duty; charged against Pramod Kumar for resisting police apprehension
-
Umar Ansari vs State of Uttar Pradesh
Decided under Indian Penal Code 186, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Criminal antecedents of an accused are a relevant consideration in bail matters but are not an absolute bar to granting anticipatory bail. Where co-accused persons have been granted bail and the core attribution of criminal conduct is disputed to be a matter of trial, bail may be granted with appropriate conditions ensuring trial participation and court appearance, provided the court is satisfied that the case has factual and legal merit for such grant.
On this section: Alleged obstruction to public servant; cited in FIR for election speech case
-
Bhera Ram Choudhary vs State of Rajasthan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused is charged with bailable offences, the accused possesses a statutory right to bail under Section 478 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 436 of the Criminal Procedure Code). The judicial officer has no discretion in such cases and must grant bail upon the accused offering surety or bail. The arrest of an accused in bailable offences must be justified by compelling reasons beyond mere suspicion, in accordance with the guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. When the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are absent from the FIR, and the arrest is unlawful and made with malice, the High Court possesses the inherent power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash the FIR and all consequential proceedings. Furthermore, when a person is unlawfully arrested and detained with malicious intent, causing violation of fundamental rights and irreparable injury to dignity, career, and mental well-being, the person is entitled to monetary compensation as a measure of restorative justice, and such compensation should be paid personally by the individuals responsible for the wrongful action rather than by the State.
On this section: The Court held that this offence is not substantiated in the present case. The petitioner's act of locking the gate was not an obstruction of the CBEO's public functions but rather an exercise of the principal's authority to maintain school administration and protect educational activities.
-
Parveen @ Kaley vs The State
Decided under Indian Penal Code 186, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When credible contemporaneous evidence (such as newspaper reports) corroborates allegations of illegal arrest and detention prior to FIR registration, and the accused have been in judicial custody for an extended period, bail should be granted despite the seriousness of charges, subject to appropriate bail conditions including personal bond and surety.
On this section: Obstructing public servant in discharge of duty
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 221
What have the courts held on Section 221 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Pramod Kumar vs State(gnct) of Delhi (01 Jul 2013) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 186, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Obstructing public servant in discharge of public duty; charged against Pramod Kumar for resisting police apprehension. Another 3 judgments on this section are set out below, 2 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2007 to 2024.
Is Section 221 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Bailable, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Is Section 221 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 221 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 221, section 221 BNS, section 221 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 221 in ipc and bns 221 bailable or not. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 4 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Pramod Kumar vs State(gnct) of Delhi (01 Jul 2013).
What should I read with Section 221 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it. It carries forward IPC 186 (Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 221 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 221 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 221, 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 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.