Criminal conspiracy
Section 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with criminal conspiracy. When two or more persons agree with the common object to do, or cause to be done— (a) an illegal act; The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) When two or more persons agree with the common object to do, or cause to be done—
(a) an illegal act; or
(b) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
Explanation.—It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy,—
(a) to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Sanhita for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence;
(b) other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.
Section 61, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 120A Definition of criminal conspiracy Close, with changes 85%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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 2 ways.
| Offence | Punishment | Cognizable | Bailable | Triable by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of 2 years or upwards. | Same as for abetment of the offence which is the object of the conspiracy. | According as the offence which is the object of conspiracy is cognizable or non-cognizable. | According as offence which is object of conspiracy is bailable or non-bailable. | Court by which abetment of the offence which is the object of conspiracy is triable. |
| Any other criminal conspiracy. | Imprisonment for 6 months, or fine, or both. | Non-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.
-
Esher Singh v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Decided under Indian Penal Code 120B, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-4.pdf 2004-03-15 (not same-date order-5 ROP). Crl A 2003. Criminal conspiracy under IPC 120A/120B is an agreement to do an illegal act; the offence is complete with the agreement, and the prosecution may prove it by surrounding circumstances and the acts of the alleged conspirators. Map ipc 120B and successor bns 61 (mapping.csv close; 120A also maps to 61).
On this section: Successor of IPC 120B (mapping.csv close; 120A also maps to 61). Conspiracy-as-agreement teaching carries to BNS 61.
-
Mohd. Mubashir vs The State of Madya Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In bail matters involving pre-trial detention, the period of incarceration already undergone by the accused is a relevant and weighty consideration. When an accused has spent a substantial period in custody (such as approximately seven and a half months), coupled with the availability of reasonable bail conditions to ensure court appearance, courts should grant bail notwithstanding the nature or seriousness of the allegations, unless specific circumstances justify continued detention.
On this section: One of the offences for which the petitioner was accused; specific interpretation not provided in this order
-
Yash Mahadeo Bhosale vs State of Maharashtra through Malegaon Police Station C R No 71 of 2026
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving serious violent crimes with allegations of conspiracy to commit murder (contract killing), where the investigation is ongoing, medical evidence shows grievous injury on vital parts of the body, witnesses have identified the accused, criminal antecedents exist, and there is demonstrable risk of witness intimidation and evidence tampering, bail should be refused even if the accused have undergone substantial custody period, as the nature and gravity of the offence and investigative requirements outweigh the right to bail at the investigation stage.
On this section: Relates to abetment. Applied to the alleged abetment of the assault and conspiracy.
-
Jameskutty Kuriakose vs State of Kerala Rep.by The Public prosecutor , Kottayam
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Anticipatory bail should be denied where custodial interrogation is necessary to unearth the full extent of organized illegal recruitment operations and fraud, especially when a prima facie case exists and the accused is a foreign national.
On this section: Substantive criminal charges related to cheating and conspiracy.
-
CBI vs SHUBHAM RAWAT
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Bail may be granted where the accused has no criminal antecedents, is not required for further police custody, and the trial is likely to be prolonged, provided the offence is not a large-scale economic crime.
On this section: Criminal conspiracy related to the bribery trap.
-
SUMIT KUMAR MEGHANI AND OTHER vs State Government
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In matters involving financial disputes arising from settlements where the accused has already spent significant time in custody for offenses triable by a Magistrate, bail may be granted even if multiple FIRs exist, provided conditions are set to ensure trial participation.
On this section: Criminal conspiracy.
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.
-
… 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) / under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the applicant / accused has prayed for grant of bail in C.R. No.153/2025 registered with respondent- Cyber Police Station, (West) Division, Crime Branch, BKC, Mumbai for the offence punishable under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 336(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. - 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 29.01.2025 the husband of the informant Jud Waz came across an advertisement on Instagram and clicked on the chat option. After conversation lady named Shivangi …
-
… Justice Ambuj Nath --- For the Petitioner: Mr. Rahul Ranjan, Advocate For the O.P-State: Mr. Subodh Kr. Dubey, A.P.P. 04 / 14.08.2025 Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner has been made accused in connection with Deoghar Cyber Crime P.S. Case No. 112 of 2024 for the offences registered under sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and sections 66B, 66C, 66D and 84C of the I.T. Act, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Deoghar. 3. Earlier bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn vide B.A. No. 10847 of 2024 by order dated 18.03.2025. 4. It was submitted …
-
… Virender Singh, Judge Applicant Rohit Kumar has filed the present application, under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as 'the BNSS') for releasing him, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, in case FIR No. 3 of 2025, dated 1.1.2025, registered under Sections 109, 333, 191(3), 190, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 61 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as 'the BNS') and Section 25 of Arms Act, with Police Station, Sadar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. 2. The applicant has pleaded the fact that he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in the present case, as he has no concern whatsoever …
Questions about Section 61
What have the courts held on Section 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Esher Singh v. State of Andhra Pradesh (15 Mar 2004) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 120B, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Successor of IPC 120B (mapping.csv close; 120A also maps to 61). Conspiracy-as-agreement teaching carries to BNS 61. Another 5 judgments on this section are set out below, 2 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2004 to 2026.
Is Section 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
According as offence which is object of conspiracy 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 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita cognizable?
According as the offence which is the object of conspiracy 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 abetment of the offence which is the object of conspiracy is triable.
How do I find court cases under Section 61 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 61, section 61 BNS, section 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 61(2) in hindi and bns 61 1 in hindi. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 6 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Esher Singh v. State of Andhra Pradesh (15 Mar 2004).
What should I read with Section 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
3 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward IPC 120A (Definition of criminal conspiracy), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 61, 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.