Officer in charge of prison to abstain from carrying out order in certain contingencies
Section 304 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with officer in charge of prison to abstain from carrying out order in certain contingencies. Where the person in respect of whom an order is made under section 302--- (a) is by reason of sickness or infirmity unfit to be removed from the prison; The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
Where the person in respect of whom an order is made under section 302---
(a) is by reason of sickness or infirmity unfit to be removed from the prison; or
(b) is under committal for trial or under remand pending trial or pending a preliminary investigation; or
(c) is in custody for a period which would expire before the expiration of the time required for complying with the order and for taking him back to the prison in which he is confined or detained; or
(d) is a person to whom an order made by the State Government or the Central Government under section 303 applies,
the officer in charge of the prison shall abstain from carrying out the Court's order and shall send to the Court a statement of reasons for so abstaining:
Provided that where the attendance of such person is required for giving evidence at a place not more than twenty-five kilometres distance from the prison, the officer in charge of the prison shall not so abstain for the reason mentioned in clause (b).
Section 304, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
CRPC 269 Officer in charge of prison to abstain from carrying out certaincontingencies Text carried over almost unchanged 88%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
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.
-
Mustafa Usman Lande vs Uoi
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 269, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 269 CrPC applies only to orders under Section 267 CrPC and not to general judicial orders directing production of an accused. The provision is designed to prevent disruption of ongoing trial or committal proceedings, not to confer a right on prisoners to avoid production in other jurisdictions. An accused facing trial in multiple courts cannot use one pending trial as an excuse to avoid appearing in other cases, as this would delay justice in other matters and prevent speedy disposal of cases. The CrPC must be interpreted pragmatically to ensure meaningful implementation and not as a procedure that creates impediments to criminal proceedings.
On this section: Court held that Section 269 applies only to orders under Section 267 CrPC and not to general judicial orders. The provision is meant to prevent disruption of ongoing trial or committal proceedings, not to allow accused to avoid production in other cases. Court rejected the petitioner's reliance on this section as inapplicable to the factual matrix.
-
Md.shahabuddin vs The State of Bihar& ORS.
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 269, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Denial of production of an accused in a case for the limited purpose of remand, subject to genuine contingencies under Section 269 Cr.P.C., amounts to denial of both the right to seek bail and the benefits of rights enshrined in the Criminal Procedure Code. An accused has an equal right to be tried speedily in all cases in which he is an accused. Section 269 Cr.P.C. does not provide unfettered power to abstain from executing production warrants; it applies only to genuine contingencies such as sickness, infirmity, or genuine time constraints. Where intervening days exist between court dates, jail authorities must facilitate production for limited remand purposes. The court must balance the right to speedy trial in one case with the right to be produced in another case, and indefinite denial of production warrants for extended periods is not justified under Section 269 Cr.P.C.
On this section: Provides exceptions to production warrant execution; extensively analyzed by the court to determine when jail authorities can abstain from executing production warrants; court held that this section does not provide unfettered power to abstain and contingencies must be genuine and time-limited
-
O.p. Mishra vs The State Govt of Nct of Delhi
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 269, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A prison superintendent cannot be held liable for non-production of an under-trial prisoner when the prisoner is detained in another state's jail by judicial order of a competent court. The duty to produce a prisoner under Sections 267 and 270 of the Criminal Procedure Code is limited to prisoners within the superintendent's custody and control. When a prisoner is detained outside the superintendent's jurisdiction by judicial order, the superintendent is not guilty of non-compliance or dereliction of duty, and the court must appreciate the circumstances that make compliance impossible.
On this section: Cited by petitioner as violated but not specifically analyzed in the judgment. Relates to conditions for prisoner production.
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 304
What have the courts held on Section 304 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
Mustafa Usman Lande vs Uoi (13 Feb 2013) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under CRPC 269, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Court held that Section 269 applies only to orders under Section 267 CrPC and not to general judicial orders. The provision is meant to prevent disruption of ongoing trial or committal proceedings, not to allow accused to avoid production in other cases. Court rejected the petitioner's reliance on this section as inapplicable to the factual matrix. Another 2 judgments on this section are set out below. They run from 2002 to 2013.
How do I find court cases under Section 304 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha 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: BNSS 304, section 304 BNSS, section 304 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. People searching for it also type bnss 304(2) and bnss 304 a. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 3 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Mustafa Usman Lande vs Uoi (13 Feb 2013).
What should I read with Section 304 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 302 (Power to require attendance of prisoners), section 303 (Power of State Government or Central Government to exclude certain persons from operation of section 302), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it. It carries forward CrPC 269 (Officer in charge of prison to abstain from carrying out certaincontingencies), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 304 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita come into force?
Section 304 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, cited as BNSS 304, 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
- 359. Compounding of offences1355 words
- 187. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours1122 words
- 2. Definitions956 words
- 243. Trial for more than one offence930 words
- 35. When police may arrest without warrant881 words
- 480. When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence823 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.