Escape from confinement or custody negligently suffered by public servant
Section 261 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with escape from confinement or custody negligently suffered by public servant. Whoever, being a public servant legally bound as such public servant to keep in confinement any person charged with or convicted of any offence or lawfully committed to custody, negligently suffers such person to escape from confinement, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which ma The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
Whoever, being a public servant legally bound as such public servant to keep in confinement any person charged with or convicted of any offence or lawfully committed to custody, negligently suffers such person to escape from confinement, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 261, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 223 Escape from confinement or custody negligently suffered by public servant Text carried over almost unchanged 100%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
| Offence | Punishment | Cognizable | Bailable | Triable by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Escape from confinement negligently suffered by a public servant. | Simple imprisonment for 2 years, or fine, 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.
-
Easi Mohd. Alam @ Alam vs State of Haryana
Decided under Indian Penal Code 223, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a government employee who has been dismissed is fully exonerated through judicial acquittal and reinstated, the principle of 'No Work-No Pay' does not apply to deny him back wages and service benefits for the period of dismissal. An employee who is willing to work but prevented from working by the employer due to wrongful dismissal is entitled to full pay, allowances, and all consequential benefits as if he had continuously worked, and the period of dismissal must be treated as a duty period for all purposes including grant of increments and fixation of pay. This principle applies even when the dismissal was based on criminal conviction later set aside, and the employee's pursuit of legal remedies does not constitute fault attributable to him.
On this section: Sections under which petitioner was charged; Section 223 relates to causing disappearance of evidence and Section 224 relates to resistance or obstruction to lawful apprehension
-
Ram Pratap Singh vs State of U.p.
Decided under Indian Penal Code 223, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a government employee has been acquitted in a criminal case and has submitted representations for consideration of post-retirement benefits that remain undecided for an unreasonable period, the appropriate remedy is to direct the employee to file a fresh representation and mandate the administrative authority to consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order within a reasonable time frame, rather than adjudicating the merits of the claim in the writ petition itself.
On this section: These sections relate to the criminal charges against the petitioner in Crime No. 1018 of 2003, for which he was acquitted on February 20, 2019
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.
-
… prime}$ This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the petitioner/Accused, seeking anticipatory bail, in connection with Crime No.161 of 2024 of Penukonda Police Station, Sri Sathya Sai district, registered for the offence punishable under Section 261 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing for some time, has confined his argument to the extent of protecting the petitioner herein from the coercive action by the police on the ground that the offence alleged is punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years …
Questions about Section 261
What have the courts held on Section 261 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Easi Mohd. Alam @ Alam vs State of Haryana (19 Sep 2022) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 223, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Sections under which petitioner was charged; Section 223 relates to causing disappearance of evidence and Section 224 relates to resistance or obstruction to lawful apprehension. Another 1 judgment on this section is set out below.
Is Section 261 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Bailable, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Is Section 261 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 261 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 261, section 261 BNS, section 261 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type 261 bns in ipc and 261 bns punishment. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 2 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Easi Mohd. Alam @ Alam vs State of Haryana (19 Sep 2022).
What should I read with Section 261 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward IPC 223 (Escape from confinement or custody negligently suffered by public servant), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 261 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 261 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 261, 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.