Intentional omission to apprehend on part of public servant bound to apprehend person under sentence or lawfully committed
Section 260 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with intentional omission to apprehend on part of public servant bound to apprehend person under sentence or lawfully committed. Whoever, being a public servant, legally bound as such public servant to apprehend or to keep in confinement any person under sentence of a Court for any offence or lawfully committed to custody, intentionally omits to apprehend such person, or intentionally suffers such person to escape or intentio 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 under sentence of a Court for any offence or lawfully committed to custody, 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 for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to fourteen years, with or without fine, if the person in confinement, or who ought to have been apprehended, is under sentence of death; or
(b) 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, is subject, by a sentence of a Court, or by virtue of a commutation of such sentence, to imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of ten years, or upwards; or
(c) with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both, if the person in confinement or who ought to have been apprehended, is subject by a sentence of a Court to imprisonment for a term not extending to ten years or if the person was lawfully committed to custody.
Section 260, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 222 Intentional omission to apprehend on the part of public servant bound to apprehend person under sentence or lawfully committed 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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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 person under sentence of a Court if under sentence of death. | Imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for 14 years, with or without fine. | Cognizable. | Non-bailable. | Court of Session. |
| If under sentence of imprisonment for life or imprisonment for 10 years, or upwards. | Imprisonment for 7 years, with or without fine. | Cognizable. | Non-bailable. | Magistrate of the first class. |
| If under sentence of imprisonment for less than 10 years or lawfully committed to custody. | Imprisonment for 3 years, or fine, or both. | 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.
-
Santosh Kumar vs State of U.p.
Decided under Indian Penal Code 222, 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 charged under Section 222 IPC (intentionally omitting to give notice of certain offences by public servants). The court considered this charge in assessing the severity of the offense for bail purposes.
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 260
What have the courts held on Section 260 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Santosh Kumar vs State of U.p. (26 Jun 2019) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 222, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: The applicant was charged under Section 222 IPC (intentionally omitting to give notice of certain offences by public servants). The court considered this charge in assessing the severity of the offense for bail purposes.
Is Section 260 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Non-bailable, on a first conviction, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. This section is classified 3 ways; all of them are set out on this page.
Is Section 260 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 Court of Session.
How do I find court cases under Section 260 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 260, section 260 BNS, section 260 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 260-02z-st-l and bns 260-11zg-st-l. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 1 reported judgment on this section is set out on this page, beginning with Santosh Kumar vs State of U.p. (26 Jun 2019).
What should I read with Section 260 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward IPC 222 (Intentional omission to apprehend on the part of public servant bound to apprehend person under sentence or lawfully committed), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 260 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 260 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 260, 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.