Concealing design to commit offence punishable with imprisonment
Section 60 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with concealing design to commit offence punishable with imprisonment. Whoever, intending to facilitate or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby facilitate the commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment, voluntarily conceals, by any act or illegal omission, the existence of a design to commit such offence, or makes any representation which he knows to The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
Whoever, intending to facilitate or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby facilitate the commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment, voluntarily conceals, by any act or illegal omission, the existence of a design to commit such offence, or makes any representation which he knows to be false respecting such design shall,—
(a) if the offence be committed, be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth; and
(b) if the offence be not committed, to one-eighth, of the longest term of such imprisonment, or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both.
Section 60, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 120 Concealing design to commit offence punishable with imprisonment Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
Referred to by 1
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 2 ways.
| Offence | Punishment | Cognizable | Bailable | Triable by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concealing a design to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment, if offence be committed. | Imprisonment extending to one-fourth of the longest term provided for the offence, or fine, or both. | According as offence abetted is cognizable or non-cognizable. | According as offence abetted is bailable or non-bailable. | Court by which offence abetted is triable. |
| If the offence be not committed. | Imprisonment extending to one-eighth part of the longest term provided for the offence, or fine, or both. | According as offence abetted is cognizable or non-cognizable. | Bailable. | Court by which offence abetted is triable. |
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.
-
Benson vs State of Kerala
Decided under Indian Penal Code 120, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a person is convicted of multiple offences arising from crimes committed on the same day and the sentences imposed are relatively short in duration, the court has discretionary power under Section 427(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code to direct that the subsequent sentences run concurrently with a sentence already being served, provided such discretion is exercised judicially considering the nature and number of offences. The benefit of concurrent sentencing may be restricted to substantive sentences while default sentences and fine sentences continue to run consecutively.
On this section: Punishment for criminal conspiracy - applied in case CC 171/05 involving conspiracy charge
-
Benson vs State of Kerala
Decided under Indian Penal Code 120, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a person is convicted in multiple cases for offences committed on the same day, and each case is separately tried and sentenced consecutively, the Supreme Court, exercising its discretionary power under Section 427(1) Code of Criminal Procedure, can direct that the substantive sentences in such cases shall run concurrently with the earliest sentence already operative. This discretion must be exercised on judicial grounds considering the nature of offences, the date of commission, and the aggregate sentence burden, rather than in a mechanical manner. However, such direction for concurrent running applies only to substantive sentences of imprisonment and does not extend to sentences imposed in default of payment of fines, which continue to run consecutively to ensure compliance with financial obligations imposed by courts.
On this section: Punishment for criminal conspiracy - cited in one of the cases involving the appellant
-
Shashidhar vs State of Karnataka
Decided under Indian Penal Code 120, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An order directing further investigation under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be passed in the absence of valid sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. However, sanction is not required if, at the time of taking cognizance, the public servant is not holding the same post which is alleged to have been misused or abused. The relevant date for determining whether sanction is required is the date on which cognizance is taken, not the date on which the alleged misconduct occurred. If the public servant has been transferred from the office allegedly misused and is holding a different office (whether by promotion or otherwise), the protection under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act does not apply, and no sanction is necessary.
On this section: Criminal conspiracy, mischief, criminal intimidation and common intention - offences charged in the complaint against the appellants and co-accused.
-
Senthilkumar vs State of Tamil Nadu
Decided under Indian Penal Code 120, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A confessional statement recorded under Section 15 of TADA, if properly recorded following mandatory procedural safeguards, voluntarily made by the accused, and found by the court to be truthful, is sufficient to form the basis of conviction. Such conviction may be based on the confession alone without corroboration if the court is satisfied of its probative value. However, retraction of such confession is not automatically fatal if the court, after examining the circumstances, finds the original confession was voluntary and true and the retraction is merely an afterthought. Corroboration, while generally required as a matter of caution, is not always mandatory and depends on facts of the case. For use of confessional statement of one co-accused against another co-accused, general corroboration is required unless the court is satisfied the confession has high probative value. To establish conspiracy under Section 120(B) IPC in context of TADA offences, it is essential to prove either actual participation in the conspiracy or prior knowledge of the planned offence; mere arrangement for hospitality or contact with conspirators without prior knowledge is insufficient. Hostile witness testimony need not be completely rejected; that portion which is corroborated by other evidence on record may be relied upon. For criminal conviction in terrorist cases, the standard of proof remains 'beyond reasonable doubt', and lack of corroboration on material facts connecting an accused to the conspiracy may warrant acquittal despite other evidence.
On this section: Section 120(B) applied for criminal conspiracy to cause bomb blast; applied in conjunction with TADA sections; conspiracy must have overt act and actual participation or prior knowledge
-
Benson vs State of Kerala
Decided under Indian Penal Code 120, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a person has been convicted and sentenced to separate terms of imprisonment for multiple offences committed on the same date, the appellate or revisional court may exercise its discretion under Section 427(1) CrPC to direct that such sentences run concurrently with an operative sentence, provided that the nature of the offences, the fact situation, the quantum of sentences, and the timing of the underlying acts warrant such a direction. The exercise of discretion must be based on judicial reasoning and consideration of the specific circumstances, not on mechanical application of rules. However, the benefit of concurrent running shall be confined to substantive sentences; sentences of fine and default sentences shall continue to run consecutively unless otherwise directed.
On this section: Offence of criminal conspiracy - mentioned in the prison records for one of the earlier crimes (CC 171/05) but not directly analyzed in this judgment
-
Benson vs State of Kerala
Decided under Indian Penal Code 120, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a person is convicted in multiple cases for offences committed on the same day, the Supreme Court has discretionary power under Section 427(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to direct that the substantive sentences in such cases shall run concurrently with an operative sentence, provided the court applies judicial discretion based on the nature of offences and the relevant fact situation, considering factors such as the date of commission of offences, the quantum of sentences imposed, and the overall circumstances. However, such discretion is limited to substantive sentences; fine sentences and sentences in default of payment of fines shall continue to run consecutively.
On this section: Punishment for criminal conspiracy; cited in the prison communication regarding one of the appellant's convictions.
-
Asrafkhan Kalandar Khan Pathan vs State of Gujarat
Decided under Indian Penal Code 120, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In an appeal against acquittal based on circumstantial evidence, the appellate court must not merely substitute its view for that of the Trial Court. The appellate court must identify a gross error or significant mistake in the Trial Court's reasoning before interfering with an acquittal. Double presumption of innocence applies: the general presumption that every person is innocent unless proved guilty, and the reinforced presumption that arises once the Trial Court has acquitted. When medical and ballistic evidence are consistent with accidental death and no clear motive is established, homicidal death has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Statements made by the accused under Section 313 CrPC cannot be treated as evidence against him unless properly put to him during examination.
On this section: Charge for criminal conspiracy. Both Trial Court and High Court found that the charge of criminal conspiracy against all three accused was not proved by the prosecution.
-
Gali Janardhan Reddy vs The State of Andhra Pradesh
Decided under Indian Penal Code 120, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal cases involving serious offences and powerful accused persons with demonstrated capacity to influence witnesses and even judicial officers, even when the accused has complied with bail conditions over several years, territorial restrictions on the accused's movement may be maintained if there exists a credible apprehension of witness tampering. However, the court must balance this by mandating expedited trial proceedings conducted on a day-to-day basis and directing completion within a fixed period, so that the restrictions are not indefinite and delay does not itself become a tool for creating opportunities for witness influence. The expedited trial process serves as the counterbalance to maintaining territorial restrictions, ensuring that trial integrity is protected without indefinite curtailment of the accused's liberty.
On this section: Accused charged with criminal conspiracy in connection with mining-related offences; cited as grave offence justifying continued restrictions
-
Ramesh Rajagopal vs Devi Polymers Pvt. LTD
Decided under Indian Penal Code 120, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When allegations of forgery and fraud are made on the basis of website content that clearly identifies a company division's connection to its parent company through visible links and shared addresses, and when no fraudulent intent can be inferred, no deceptive transactions occurred, and no person was induced to part with property or enter contracts based on such representation, the criminal allegations do not constitute a prima facie offence under Sections 463, 468, or 471 IPC or Sections 65-66 IT Act 2000. Such criminal proceedings initiated as part of a private corporate dispute constitute abuse of court process and must be quashed under Section 482 CrPC in the interests of justice.
On this section: Criminal conspiracy; court found no evidence of conspiracy
-
Senaul S/o. Afsar Shaikh vs State of Gujarat
Decided under Indian Penal Code 120, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a person is convicted in two separate trials for two distinct offences under two different enactments arising from the same transaction or the same basic criminal act, the court has discretion under Section 427(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code to direct that the sentences shall run concurrently rather than consecutively, particularly where the evidence in both cases is substantially the same and the offences are intimately connected. The exercise of this discretion should be guided by the totality principle, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offences, the duration of litigation, and the principle that Section 427 is intended to provide amelioration to the prisoner. The single transaction rule applies even when the offences are under different enactments, provided the underlying criminal act is the same.
On this section: Criminal conspiracy; offence for which petitioner was convicted under Customs Act prosecution
-
Rafi Ahmed vs State of Karnataka
Decided under Indian Penal Code 120, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused person has undergone pre-conviction detention for a period equal to or exceeding the sentence awarded by the trial court, the conviction and sentence may be affirmed, but the accused should be set at liberty forthwith as they have already served their sentence, following the principle established in State of Maharashtra v. Najakat Alia Mubarak Ali (2001) 6 SCC 311.
On this section: Offence of criminal conspiracy - read with Sections 256 and 259 to enhance the culpability of the offences
-
Shashi Kumar Unnikrishnan vs Republic of India(c.b.i.)
Decided under Indian Penal Code 120, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a trial court allows the prosecution to place on record documents that were inadvertently omitted from the charge sheet, the prosecution is obligated to supply all such documents to the accused in accordance with Section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The accused retains the right to file a discharge application after receiving the documents, which shall be considered in accordance with law. The court will not interfere with the trial court's discretionary order allowing the admission of omitted documents if the omission was inadvertent and not malafide, and if adequate procedural safeguards are in place to protect the accused's rights.
On this section: Charge against the accused for criminal conspiracy
-
Balwant Singh Khera vs Uoi
Decided under Indian Penal Code 120, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a petitioner alleges that criminal offences have been committed, the proper procedure is to file a First Information Report before the concerned Police Station. A Criminal Writ Petition is not the appropriate forum for raising such allegations, even if the matter involves public interest considerations. The High Court will not entertain criminal writ petitions that should properly be addressed through the regular criminal procedure mechanism.
On this section: Concealing design to commit offence punishable with life imprisonment - cited as alleged offence
-
Most.lakhpatiya Devi vs State of Bihar
Decided under Indian Penal Code 120, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving elderly female accused persons charged with fraud-related offenses, where the complainant's actual loss or cheating is disputed or not clearly established, bail may be granted on compassionate grounds with appropriate conditions including bail bond and sureties, subject to compliance with Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
On this section: Criminal conspiracy - Alleged conspiracy in committing the fraud
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 60
What have the courts held on Section 60 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Benson vs State of Kerala (03 Oct 2016) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 120, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Punishment for criminal conspiracy - applied in case CC 171/05 involving conspiracy charge. Another 13 judgments on this section are set out below, 9 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2003 to 2025.
Is Section 60 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
According as offence abetted is bailable or non-bailable, on a first conviction, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. This section is classified 2 ways; all of them are set out on this page.
Is Section 60 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita cognizable?
According as offence abetted 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 Court by which offence abetted is triable.
How do I find court cases under Section 60 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 60, section 60 BNS, section 60 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 60 to 70 and bns 60 2 in hindi. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 14 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Benson vs State of Kerala (03 Oct 2016).
What should I read with Section 60 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it. It carries forward IPC 120 (Concealing design to commit offence punishable with imprisonment), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 60 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 60 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 60, 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.