Intentional omission to apprehend on part of public servant bound to apprehend
Section 259 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with intentional omission to apprehend on part of public servant bound to apprehend. Whoever, being a public servant, legally bound as such public servant to apprehend or to keep in confinement any person charged with or liable to be apprehended for an offence, intentionally omits to apprehend such person, or intentionally suffers such person to escape, or intentionally aids such pe The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
Whoever, being a public servant, legally bound as such public servant to apprehend or to keep in confinement any person charged with or liable to be apprehended for an offence, intentionally omits to apprehend such person, or intentionally suffers such person to escape, or intentionally aids such person in escaping or attempting to escape from such confinement, shall be punished,—
(a) with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, with or without fine, if the person in confinement, or who ought to have been apprehended, was charged with, or liable to be apprehended for, an offence punishable with death; or
(b) with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, with or without fine, if the person in confinement, or who ought to have been apprehended, was charged with, or liable to be apprehended for, an offence punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years; or
(c) with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, with or without fine, if the person in confinement, or who ought to have been apprehended, was charged with, or liable to be apprehended for, an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term less than ten years.
Section 259, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 221 Intentional omission to apprehend on the part of public servant bound to apprehend 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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intentional omission to apprehend on the part of a public servant bound by law to apprehend an offender, if the offence is punishable with death. | Imprisonment for 7 years, with or without fine. | According as the offence in relation to which such omission has been made is cognizable or non-cognizable. | Bailable. | Magistrate of the first class. |
| If punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for 10 years. | Imprisonment for 3 years, with or without fine. | Cognizable. | Bailable. | Magistrate of the first class. |
| If punishable with imprisonment for less than 10 years. | Imprisonment for 2 years, with or without fine. | Cognizable. | Bailable. | Magistrate of the first class. |
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.
-
G Uday Kumar vs State of Ap
Decided under Indian Penal Code 221, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Panel valuers and private professionals cannot be prosecuted under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 read with Section 120B IPC based solely on the opinion given by them in a bank fraud conspiracy case without establishing a proper and acceptable link between their professional opinion and the criminal conspiracy, and therefore are entitled to anticipatory bail in such circumstances.
On this section: Definition of public servant; cited to establish that panel valuers are not public servants as defined under this section
-
Thr Principal Resident Commissioner Govt. of Punjab vs Centurion Bank of Punjab Ltd.
Decided under Indian Penal Code 221, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The process of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be used to satisfy the ego, whim or fancy of a Magistrate. A Magistrate has no jurisdiction to summon a government officer who has no role in the matter before the court. The exercise of judicial power must be confined to matters within the court's jurisdiction, and the modus of service through multiple government officers is improper and invalid. The High Court, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, can quash orders that are wholly without jurisdiction and constitute an abuse of the process of court.
On this section: Section 221 deals with intentional omission to apprehend by a public servant. The Magistrate issued a show cause notice under this section against SSP Sangrur, Punjab for failure to produce the accused. The court noted that this section provides for imprisonment up to 7 years for offences punishable with death, 3 years for offences punishable with life imprisonment or 10 years, and 2 years for other offences.
-
Santosh Kumar vs State of U.p.
Decided under Indian Penal Code 221, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal bail applications under Section 439 CrPC, the court must consider the complicity of the accused, the severity of the punishment prescribed for the offense, and the totality of facts and circumstances. When co-accused persons have been released on bail and the applicant has been in prolonged custody without evidence of flight risk or witness tampering, bail may be granted with appropriate conditions to ensure court attendance and witness protection.
On this section: The applicant was initially bailed under these sections on March 29, 2019, before Section 222 was added during investigation.
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 259
What have the courts held on Section 259 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
G Uday Kumar vs State of Ap (18 Aug 2021) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 221, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Definition of public servant; cited to establish that panel valuers are not public servants as defined under this section. Another 2 judgments on this section are set out below. They run from 2008 to 2021.
Is Section 259 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Bailable, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Is Section 259 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita cognizable?
According as the offence in relation to which such omission has been made is cognizable or 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 Magistrate of the first class.
How do I find court cases under Section 259 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 259, section 259 BNS, section 259 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns ki dhara 259. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 3 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with G Uday Kumar vs State of Ap (18 Aug 2021).
What should I read with Section 259 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward IPC 221 (Intentional omission to apprehend on the part of public servant bound to apprehend), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 259 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 259 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 259, 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.