Dacoity
Section 310 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with dacoity. When five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery, or where the whole number of persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit a robbery, and persons present and aiding such commission or attempt, amount to five or more, every person so committing, attempting or aidin The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) When five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery, or where the whole number of persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit a robbery, and persons present and aiding such commission or attempt, amount to five or more, every person so committing, attempting or aiding, is said to commit dacoity.
(2) Whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
(3) If any one of five or more persons, who are conjointly committing dacoity, commits murder in so committing dacoity, every one of those persons shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
(4) Whoever makes any preparation for committing dacoity, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
(5) Whoever is one of five or more persons assembled for the purpose of committing dacoity, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
(6) Whoever belongs to a gang of persons associated for the purpose of habitually committing dacoity, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 310, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 391 Dacoity Text carried over almost unchanged 90%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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 5 ways.
| Offence | Punishment | Cognizable | Bailable | Triable by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dacoity. | Imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine. | Cognizable. | Non-bailable. | Court of Session. |
| Murder in dacoity. | Death, imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for not less than 10 years and fine. | Cognizable. | Non-bailable. | Court of Session. |
| Making preparation to commit dacoity. | Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine. | Cognizable. | Non-bailable. | Court of Session. |
| Being one of five or more persons assembled for the purpose of committing dacoity. | R igorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine. | Cognizable. | Non-bailable. | Court of Session. |
| Belonging to a gang of persons associated for the purpose of habitually committing dacoity. | Imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine. | Cognizable. | Non-bailable. | Court of Session. |
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.
-
Mohamed Ali v. State
Decided under Indian Penal Code 395, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-9.pdf 2009-03-17. Body date MARCH 17, 2009 matches the order index (DATE-CHECK verify warning from filename reuse, not a wrong document). Crl A 482/2009. Sinha/Sharma. Dacoity under IPC 395 needs five persons; when co-accused are acquitted the remaining accused cannot be convicted of 395 and the conviction is altered to robbery under 392. Ashfaq's famous 392 PDF remains HTTP 500 on its own CNR. Map 395 and 392; do not pad 397.
On this section: Successor of IPC 395 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.8687). The five-person dacoity ingredient carries to BNS 310.
-
State(tr)central Bureau of Investigation vs Shri Kalyan Singh(former Cm of Up)
Decided under Indian Penal Code 395, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Supreme Court of India has the power under Article 142 of the Constitution to transfer criminal proceedings from one Special Court to another Special Court under the same High Court jurisdiction to achieve complete justice and remedy procedural defects, provided such transfer does not violate mandatory substantive provisions of law. In cases involving crimes that shake the secular fabric of the Constitution and where procedural defects have prevented a unified trial of accused persons charged with criminal conspiracy in the course of the same transaction, the Supreme Court can exercise this power to consolidate fragmented proceedings and ensure that all accused are tried together for the conspiracy charge, even if some had been previously discharged from separate proceedings. The absence of a non-obstante clause in the relevant statutory provision (Section 11(1) proviso of the Criminal Procedure Code) distinguishes this case from situations where such a clause exists, and therefore the transfer does not violate the fundamental right to appeal under Article 21 of the Constitution.
On this section: Dacoity - Applied to charges against kar sewaks involved in the demolition.
-
Haji Mahboob Ahmad vs Kalyan Singh
Decided under Indian Penal Code 395, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Supreme Court of India has the constitutional power under Article 142 to transfer criminal proceedings from one court to another to remedy procedural defects and ensure complete justice, even when the High Court has statutory power under Section 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code to do so. This power can be exercised when crimes that shake the secular fabric of the Constitution have allegedly been committed and the accused persons have not been brought to book largely because of procedural defects and the conduct of the investigating agency. The transfer does not violate Article 21 of the Constitution because the procedure established by law itself contemplates such transfers under Section 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the absence of a non-obstante clause in Section 11(1) proviso of the Criminal Procedure Code distinguishes this case from cases where substantive rights are infringed. Additionally, criminal conspiracy charges already contained in a joint charge sheet cannot be separated from the accused persons by discharging them, and all offences committed in the course of the same transaction to accomplish a conspiracy must be tried jointly.
On this section: Dacoity - applied to charges against Kar Sewaks for the organized nature of the demolition
-
Rafiq Ahmed @ Rafi vs State of U. P
Decided under Indian Penal Code 391, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused is charged with dacoity-with-murder under Section 396 IPC, the ingredient of murder defined under Section 300 IPC is expressly incorporated into Section 396 by specific statutory language. Therefore, if the evidence establishes that the accused committed murder but does not establish the dacoity component, the accused can be convicted for murder under Section 302 IPC without a specific charge for Section 302, provided: (a) the accused had notice that murder was an allegation against him through the Section 396 charge and Section 313 examination where facts were put to him; (b) he had full opportunity to defend himself; (c) no prejudice resulted to his right to fair trial, presumption of innocence, or the prosecution's burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; and (d) the ingredients of murder under Section 300 IPC are satisfied by the evidence. The principle of cognate offences permits such conviction when the graver offence (dacoity-with-murder) incorporates the essential elements of the lesser offence (murder) by express statutory language, and the accused suffered no failure of justice.
On this section: Defines dacoity - when five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt robbery. Applied to establish that dacoity requires minimum five persons
-
Sukhraj Singh vs Sanjiv Kumar @ Gora
Decided under Indian Penal Code 395, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The conviction of Sanjiv Kumar under Sections 395, 450, and 342 IPC is legally sustainable as it is supported by credible prosecution evidence including eyewitness testimony, documentary evidence, and investigative findings; the separate acquittal or relief granted to a co-offender in a different proceeding does not invalidate the conviction of another accused if the evidence against that accused is independently reliable and credible; sentencing for criminal offences must balance the need for just punishment with proportionality between the offence and penalty, considering the impact on society and the victim, and mere passage of time since the incident without exceptional circumstances does not warrant further sentence reduction beyond what the trial and appellate courts have determined.
On this section: Dacoity - conviction upheld for robbery committed with the use of criminal force, affirming the serious nature of the offence
-
Sudheer Singh @ Sudheer vs State of A. P
Decided under Indian Penal Code 395, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An appellate judgment in a criminal case that presents facts but fails to analyze evidence of witnesses and provide substantive reasoning for upholding conviction is deficient and violates principles of proper appellate review, warranting remand by a higher appellate court for proper reconsideration of the case.
On this section: Armed dacoity charge - A-2 was charged but acquitted by trial court
-
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 395, 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: Dacoity; defined as five or more persons committing robbery
-
Uday Ram vs State (nct) of Delhi
Decided under Indian Penal Code 395, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a delay in registration of FIR is satisfactorily explained by extraordinary circumstances such as communal riots, police inaction despite complaints, and subsequent direction by an inquiry committee, such delay does not by itself vitiate the prosecution case. Conviction can be sustained on circumstantial evidence (including affidavits before official committees, witness testimony, documentary evidence like invoices and commercial records, civil court decrees, and evidence of long-term illegal occupation) even in the absence of direct ocular testimony to the crime. However, in sentencing, the Court has discretion to show leniency based on compelling personal circumstances such as advanced age, when the fundamental conviction is sustainable.
On this section: Dacoity - Charged but not convicted; part of original charges
-
Ashi Devi vs State (nct of Delhi)
Decided under Indian Penal Code 395, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The conviction of persons for theft and criminal trespass committed during communal riots can be sustained on the basis of circumstantial evidence, even in the absence of direct eyewitness testimony, when the circumstances are coherent, consistent, and conclusively establish guilt. The delay in registration of FIR caused by the riot situation and subsequent administrative inquiry processes is reasonably explained and does not, by itself, invalidate a conviction. In sentencing, the court may exercise discretion to reduce imprisonment for elderly appellants who have already undergone a substantial portion of the sentence, particularly where humanitarian considerations warrant such mitigation.
On this section: Dacoity - charged but conviction under this section not confirmed by trial court
-
Easi Mohd. Alam @ Alam vs State of Haryana
Decided under Indian Penal Code 395, 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 the original accused (Tahir) was charged in FIR No. 427
-
Sagar vs Union Territory
Decided under Indian Penal Code 395, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A prisoner with an extensive criminal history involving multiple serious offences (dacoity, robbery, theft, forgery, and drug-related crimes) cannot be granted parole merely on the grounds of meeting family members or performing conjugal rights, particularly when the parole authority has reasonably determined that releasing such a prisoner would pose a potential danger to society.
On this section: Dacoity - FIR No. 534 of 2015 against petitioner
-
Garadi Madduleti vs State of A.p.
Decided under Indian Penal Code 391, 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: (1) Dacoity under Section 391 IPC requires proof that five or more persons conjointly committed or attempted to commit a robbery. If the evidence establishes that fewer than five persons participated, conviction under Section 396 IPC (dacoity with murder) cannot be sustained, even if other evidence suggests additional persons' involvement. (2) In criminal cases involving identification of strangers in night-time offences, a single eyewitness testimony can form the basis of conviction if it is unimpeachable, true, and trustworthy. (3) A properly conducted test identification parade by a Magistrate, where the witness correctly identifies the accused on multiple occasions, can corroborate and strengthen eyewitness testimony. (4) Delay in identification and trial, even spanning 15 years, does not necessarily discredit a witness's testimony if the witness's memory has been tested through a properly conducted identification parade and the witness has no motive to falsely implicate the accused. (5) Mere recovery of stolen or dacoit property from an accused person cannot by itself lead to an irresistible conclusion that the person participated in the commission of the offence; such recovery could indicate the person is a receiver of stolen property.
On this section: Definition of dacoity - cited to establish that dacoity requires five or more persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit a robbery. The court applied this section to determine that since only three persons participated in the offence, the charge under Section 396 IPC could not be sustained.
-
Pramveer @ Sonu vs State of Rajasthan through Pp
Decided under Indian Penal Code 395, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused has been in custody for an extended period (over two years), the prosecution's investigation has resulted in an initial untraced report, and the accused has been acquitted in other criminal cases, it is just and expedient to grant regular bail subject to trial court satisfaction, without prejudging the merits of the case.
On this section: Offence of dacoity; charge against petitioner in connection with tanker robbery
-
Madhankumar vs State Rep.by the Inspector of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The mere existence of criminal antecedents does not automatically bar the grant of bail if the current allegation is of a preparatory nature and the accused has undergone significant incarceration.
On this section: Charging section for preparation to commit dacoity.
-
Dankeswar Bag vs State of Odisha
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Bail may be granted when investigation is complete, charge sheet is filed, and co-accused are already released on bail, provided strict conditions are imposed to ensure trial attendance.
On this section: Substantive offence of snatching/theft for which petitioners were charged.
-
Ashutosh Alias Ashu Pramod Awasthi vs State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Bail may be denied at the initial stage of investigation if the accused has significant criminal antecedents and the offense involves an organized modus operandi that poses a threat to public order and witness safety.
On this section: Substantive offenses including dacoity, cheating, and common intention.
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.
-
… JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 2 16-04-2025 Heard learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned APP for the State. > 02. In the present case, the petitioner seeks bail in connection with Basopatti P.S. Case No. 188 of 2024 registered for the alleged offences under Sections 310(4), 310(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25(1-b)a, 26, 35 of the Arms Act. > 03. As per prosecution case, police received information about assembly of 6-7 miscreants in some orchard. A raid was conducted and four persons were apprehended including this petitioner. On search of the petitioner, recovery of …
-
… 1.jpeg) This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner on 11.03.2025 under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, praying to grant bail. 2. The petitioner /A5 was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 18.02.2025 for the alleged offences punishable under Section 310(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 in Crime No.123 of 2025 on the file of the respondentpolice. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 18.02.2025, while the respondent-police were on patrol duty, they received a tip-off that some individuals were sitting and talking inside the thorn bushes, armed with …
-
… JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI) This petition is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ' BNSS ') for grant of regular bail in Crime no.139/2024 by Mudalgi Police Station for offences punishable under Section 310 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (' BNS ', for short) by accused no.1 to 3. 2. Sri Ashok R. Kalyanshetty, learned counsel for petitioner submitted case of prosecution was that at 11.20 p.m. on 20.11.2024, complaint was filed by Jaffar Ibrahim Mujawar (' complainant ' for short), stating that he was …
Questions about Section 310
What have the courts held on Section 310 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Mohamed Ali v. State (17 Mar 2009) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 395, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Successor of IPC 395 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.8687). The five-person dacoity ingredient carries to BNS 310. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 9 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2025.
Is Section 310 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Non-bailable, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Is Section 310 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 310 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 310, section 310 BNS, section 310 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 310 2 in hindi and bns 310(4). Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Mohamed Ali v. State (17 Mar 2009).
What should I read with Section 310 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
3 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward IPC 391 (Dacoity), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 310 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 310 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 310, 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 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.