Intentional omission to apprehend on the part of public servant bound to apprehend person under sentence or lawfully committed
IPC 222 (Intentional omission to apprehend on the part of public servant bound to apprehend person under sentence or lawfully committed) corresponds most closely to BNS 260, Intentional omission to apprehend on part of public servant bound to apprehend person under sentence or lawfully committed, on a text comparison scoring 97 per cent. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 was repealed with effect from 01 Jul 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
Repealed · Indian Penal Code
Section 222 Intentional omission to apprehend on the part of public servant bound to apprehend person under sentence or lawfully committed
Whoever, being a public servant, legally bound as such public servant to apprehend or to keep in confinement any person under sentence of a Court of Justice for any offence [or lawfully committed to custody], intentionally omits to apprehend such person, or intentionally suffers such person to escape or intentionally aids such person in escaping or attempting to escape from such confinement, shall be punished as follows, that is to say:-
with [imprisonment for life] or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to fourteen years, with or without fine, if the person in confinement, or who ought to have been apprehended, is under sentence of death; or
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, with or without fine, if the person in confinement, or who, ought to have been apprehended, is subject, by a sentence of a Court of Justice, or by virtue of a commutation of such sentence, to [imprisonment for life] or imprisonment for a term of ten years or upwards; or
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both, if the person in confinement, or who ought to have been apprehended is subject, by a sentence of a Court of Justice, to imprisonment for a term not extending to ten years [or if the person was lawfully committed to custody].
In force · Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Section 260 Intentional omission to apprehend on part of public servant bound to apprehend person under sentence or lawfully committed
Whoever, being a public servant, legally bound as such public servant to apprehend or to keep in confinement any person under sentence of a Court for any offence or lawfully committed to custody, intentionally omits to apprehend such person, or intentionally suffers such person to escape or intentionally aids such person in escaping or attempting to escape from such confinement, shall be punished,—
(a) with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to fourteen years, with or without fine, if the person in confinement, or who ought to have been apprehended, is under sentence of death; or
(b) with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, with or without fine, if the person in confinement or who ought to have been apprehended, is subject, by a sentence of a Court, or by virtue of a commutation of such sentence, to imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of ten years, or upwards; or
(c) with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both, if the person in confinement or who ought to have been apprehended, is subject by a sentence of a Court to imprisonment for a term not extending to ten years or if the person was lawfully committed to custody.
Other provisions with similar text
The next closest matches, in order. Where a provision was split or merged, the answer is often more than one of these.
How this table was made, and what it is not
There is no official machine-readable correspondence between the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The Ministry published comparison charts for human readers; nothing exists that a computer can check. So this is not an official mapping and we do not present it as one.
What it measures is how alike the text of two provisions is. For each provision of the old enactment we compare its words against every provision of the new one and report the closest, with the score. That works here because the new codes are largely a renumbering rather than a rewrite: where a provision carried over near-verbatim the match is self-evidencing, and you can see it for yourself, because both texts are set out side by side on every entry.
Where the law genuinely changed, the score falls and the entry says no close match found rather than offering a guess. Those entries matter: they are where the reform actually did something.
Check before you cite. A high score means the words are alike, not that a court has held the provisions equivalent. For that, read both texts and the Gazette.
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. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.