Resistance or obstruction by a person to his lawful apprehension
Section 262 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with resistance or obstruction by a person to his lawful apprehension. Whoever intentionally offers any resistance or illegal obstruction to the lawful apprehension of himself for any offence with which he is charged or of which he has been convicted, or escapes or attempts to escape from any custody in which he is lawfully detained for any such offence, shall be punis The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
Whoever intentionally offers any resistance or illegal obstruction to the lawful apprehension of himself for any offence with which he is charged or of which he has been convicted, or escapes or attempts to escape from any custody in which he is lawfully detained for any such offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Explanation.—The punishment in this section is in addition to the punishment for which the person to be apprehended or detained in custody was liable for the offence with which he was charged, or of which he was convicted.
Section 262, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 224 Resistance or obstruction by a person to his lawful apprehension 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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resistance or obstruction by a person to his lawful apprehension. | Imprisonment for 2 years, or fine, or both. | 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.
-
B. A. Umesh vs Regr. Gen. High Court of Karnataka
Decided under Indian Penal Code 224, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In a case involving rape followed by murder of a defenseless widow, combined with robbery, where the convict is a former police official with a history of seven prior convictions spanning multiple serious crimes, escape from judicial custody, commission of another crime within days of the present crime, and demonstrated lack of reformation potential and future dangerousness to society, the cumulative aggravating circumstances satisfy the 'rarest of rare' test established in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab and justify capital punishment as the appropriate sentence. The young age of the offender, non-premeditation, or leaving a child victim alive do not constitute sufficient mitigating circumstances to outweigh these grave aggravating factors. Furthermore, Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. does not mandate a separate hearing date on sentence if the accused has been adequately heard on the question of sentence by the trial court and appellate courts.
On this section: Applied for escape from lawful custody; cited in context of petitioner's escape from judicial custody on 18.07.1997
-
Shajahan@shaje@shahul Hameed@basha@thoka vs The State Rep. by the Additional Deputy Superintendent of Police and Chief Investigating Officer
Decided under Indian Penal Code 224, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where evidence of harboring under Section 212 IPC depends on witness testimony that the escaped prisoner came to and resided at a specific location, and the owner of that location and other witnesses explicitly deny this allegation without contradiction from the prosecution, the harboring charge cannot be sustained even if conspiracy is otherwise proved, as the charge of harboring requires clear positive evidence of the specific act of harboring and cannot rest on mere presumption or conspiracy alone.
On this section: Resistance or obstruction by person to lawful apprehension
-
Sadashio Mundaji Bhalerao vs State of Maharashtra
Decided under Indian Penal Code 224, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases of custodial death, while the 'last seen alive' doctrine and the circumstance that a person died in police custody are significant, they cannot form the sole basis for conviction of accused police officers. The prosecution must establish through credible evidence a clear nexus between the accused's actions and the death. When eyewitness testimony is compromised by the criminal antecedents of witnesses, significant inconsistencies in their accounts, observations from inadequate vantage points during nighttime, and material witnesses turn hostile, such evidence cannot support conviction. Similarly, circumstantial evidence based on identification of a decomposed body through fingerprints is unreliable when the foundational authenticity of the comparison documents is not established and expert evidence rests on unproven assumptions. Appellate courts should be slow to interfere with acquittals unless compelling circumstances justify reversal, and reasons given for reversal must be cogent and appeal to reason. The court must distinguish between suspicious circumstances and legally established guilt, maintaining the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt even in cases involving police personnel.
On this section: Escape from custody - Court examined the prosecution claim that accused falsely registered this offense to cover up the custodial death
-
Nishan Singh vs State of Punjab
Decided under Indian Penal Code 224, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A prisoner's history of absconding during parole and committing further offences during the absconding period constitutes sufficient grounds to deny subsequent parole applications, even when compassionate grounds such as family illness are cited, as the state's security concerns and apprehension regarding threat to public order are well-founded and cannot be overridden by personal hardship.
On this section: Basis of various criminal charges including absconding, obstructing public servant, and rioting
-
Pratheesh vs State of Kerala
Decided under Indian Penal Code 224, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When accused persons attack public servants with dangerous weapons with the intention to rescue a person from lawful custody, the circumstances including the nature of weapons, severity of injuries, and number of officials attacked establish the intention to commit murder under Section 307 IPC. Identification of accused by eyewitnesses at trial is admissible without formal identification parade when witnesses had sufficient opportunity to observe the accused during extended overt acts. A mother's natural emotional reaction (crying) when her son is arrested does not constitute criminal liability under Sections 307, 333, or 225B IPC. Intentional resistance or illegal obstruction to lawful apprehension under Section 225B IPC requires active resistance, not mere running away.
On this section: Escape or rescue from custody - Referenced in context of Section 225B interpretation
-
Bhawani Singh vs State of Rajasthan through P P.
Decided under Indian Penal Code 224, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The ratio decidendi of this judgment is that: (1) Section 352 CrPC operates only when the same magistrate who witnessed the offence tries the case. If a different magistrate is holding charge at the time of trial, Section 352 does not apply. (2) A magistrate acting in official public capacity is not deemed personally interested under Section 479 CrPC, and the Explanation to Section 479 specifically clarifies this. (3) The title given to a document does not determine its legal nature. If allegations are made to a magistrate with a view to taking action, it constitutes a complaint under Section 2(d) CrPC regardless of the title. (4) A complaint filed under valid provisions of law (Section 180F of Indian Railways Act 1989) is not vitiated merely because the charge-sheet title incorrectly cites repealed provisions (Indian Railways Act 1890). (5) Section 195 CrPC bar does not apply to Section 224 IPC offence, hence defences available to co-accused under Section 195 are not available to accused charged under Section 224 IPC. (6) Prima facie evidence of commission of offence is sufficient to sustain cognizance and proceed with prosecution.
On this section: Offence of obstructing public servant in discharge of duty. Cognizance was taken under this section against the constables for allegedly obstructing the Railway Magistrate.
-
Dinesh vs State of Rajasthan through P P.
Decided under Indian Penal Code 224, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When prima facie evidence of criminal offenses exists and the substance of allegations constitutes a valid complaint under law, procedural defects in the form or title of documents do not vitiate the cognizance or proceedings. The bar under Section 352 Criminal Procedure Code applies only when the same magistrate who witnessed the offense tries the case; if a different magistrate conducts the trial, the bar does not apply. A magistrate acting in his public capacity is not deemed personally interested under Section 479 Criminal Procedure Code merely by reason of being involved in a matter in that capacity. The availability of statutory protections under Section 195 and 340 Criminal Procedure Code depends on the specific offense charged, and these protections do not extend to offenses not enumerated in Section 195.
On this section: Offense of obstructing public servant in discharge of duty; applied to petitioners for allegedly obstructing Railway Magistrate
-
Kanchan @ Dharmendra vs State of Rajasthan through P P
Decided under Indian Penal Code 224, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A second anticipatory bail petition cannot be entertained and must be dismissed if there is no change in circumstances from the earlier dismissed petition, as the earlier dismissal on merits remains binding unless material new facts or changed circumstances are demonstrated.
On this section: Resistance or obstruction by a person to his lawful apprehension; charge against the petitioner
-
Md. Mustafa @ Karoo Mian vs The State of Bihar
Decided under Indian Penal Code 224, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An accused who absconds from law and commits further anti-social activities during abscondance is not a suitable candidate for bail, as such conduct demonstrates a propensity for criminal behavior and flight risk. The commission of additional offences during abscondance is a material factor in bail rejection.
On this section: Sections 224 and 225 IPC relate to disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant and contempt of lawful authority. The petitioner was accused under these sections, which formed the basis of the criminal case for which bail was sought.
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.
-
… After extensive search and efforts, accused-petitioner was apprehended by Police Station Airport. In this regard, an FIR No. 0076/2025 dated 24.05.2025 was registered with the Police Station, SMS Hospital, Jaipur for committing an offence under Sections 261 and 262 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). In the aforesaid case, apart from the accused-petitioner, four police Guards were also arrested. 25. Learned counsel for DGGI while placing the aforesaid facts, has submitted that the accused-petitioner is an influential person and has misused his power, contacts and other …
Questions about Section 262
What have the courts held on Section 262 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
B. A. Umesh vs Regr. Gen. High Court of Karnataka (03 Oct 2016) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 224, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Applied for escape from lawful custody; cited in context of petitioner's escape from judicial custody on 18.07.1997. Another 8 judgments on this section are set out below, 3 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2006 to 2023.
Is Section 262 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Bailable, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Is Section 262 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 Any Magistrate.
How do I find court cases under Section 262 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 262, section 262 BNS, section 262 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type 262 bns in ipc and 262 bns punishment. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 9 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with B. A. Umesh vs Regr. Gen. High Court of Karnataka (03 Oct 2016).
What should I read with Section 262 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward IPC 224 (Resistance or obstruction by a person to his lawful apprehension), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 262 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 262 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 262, 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.