Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions
Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions. Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both. The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1862. Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
Section 186, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 221 Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions Text carried over almost unchanged 97%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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 26
- Criminal Law Amendment Act s. 10 Power of State Government to make certain offences cognizable and non-bailable
- Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act s. 6 Resistance to allow taking of measurements
- Delhi Police Act s. 56 Resistance to the taking of measurements, etc
- Himachal Pradesh Prevention of Malpractices at University, Board or other Specified Examinations Act s. 8
- Karnataka Prohibition Act s. 109 Power to require person to submit to medical examination, etc
- Kerala Identification of Prisoners Act s. 7 Resistance to the taking of measurements, etc
- Kerala Identification of Prisoners Act, 1963 (No.39 of 1963) s. 7 Resistance to the taking of measurements, etc
- Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 (No.8 of 1958) s. 20
- Kerala Muncipality Act s. 376
- Maharashtra Prohibition Act s. 129A Power to require persons to submit to medical examination, etc
- Manipur Flood Plain Zoning Act s. 25
- Odisha Hydro Electric Projects and Flood Control Works (Survey) Act s. 6
and 14 more
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.
-
Pramod Kumar vs State(gnct) of Delhi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Police officer witnesses cannot be automatically discredited solely on the ground that they are official witnesses. Their testimony must be evaluated on the same standards of veracity, credibility, and reliability as any other witness. If, after careful scrutiny of evidence, the court finds police testimony to be reliable and trustworthy, the court can act upon such testimony. The quality and strength of evidence is more important than the quantity of evidence or the source thereof. In the present case, the consistent testimony of multiple police witnesses, combined with ballistic evidence (FSL report on the country-made pistol, test fire results, matching cartridge evidence) and post-mortem findings (gunshot wound characteristics and direction), collectively and conclusively establishes that the accused (appellant) fired the fatal shot from the country-made pistol recovered from his custody, causing the death of Constable Maharaj Singh. The appellant's alternative defense that another police officer (Samar Singh) fired the fatal shot is rejected as lacking credibility and being contradicted by material evidence.
On this section: Obstructing public servant in discharge of public duty; charged against Pramod Kumar for resisting police apprehension
-
Umar Ansari vs State of Uttar Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Criminal antecedents of an accused are a relevant consideration in bail matters but are not an absolute bar to granting anticipatory bail. Where co-accused persons have been granted bail and the core attribution of criminal conduct is disputed to be a matter of trial, bail may be granted with appropriate conditions ensuring trial participation and court appearance, provided the court is satisfied that the case has factual and legal merit for such grant.
On this section: Alleged obstruction to public servant; cited in FIR for election speech case
-
Parveen @ Kaley vs The State
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When credible contemporaneous evidence (such as newspaper reports) corroborates allegations of illegal arrest and detention prior to FIR registration, and the accused have been in judicial custody for an extended period, bail should be granted despite the seriousness of charges, subject to appropriate bail conditions including personal bond and surety.
On this section: Obstructing public servant in discharge of duty
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.
-
… 38 Picture 7.jpeg) following manner: "5. ...it cannot be ignored that ss. 186 and 353, Indian Penal Code relate to two distinct offences and while the offence under the latter section is a cognizable offence, the one under the former section is not so. The ingredients of the two offences are also distinct. Section 186, Indian Penal Code is applicable to a case where the accused voluntarily obstructs a public servant in the discharge of his public functions but under s. 353, Indian Penal Code the ingredient of assault or use of criminal force while the public servant is doing his duty as such is necessary. The quality of the two …
Questions about Section 186
What have the courts held on Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code?
Pramod Kumar vs State(gnct) of Delhi (01 Jul 2013) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Obstructing public servant in discharge of public duty; charged against Pramod Kumar for resisting police apprehension. Another 2 judgments on this section are set out below, 2 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2007 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code?
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: IPC 186, section 186 IPC, section 186 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 186 in bns. 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 Pramod Kumar vs State(gnct) of Delhi (01 Jul 2013).
What should I read with Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
26 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 221 (Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 186, came into force on 01 Jan 1862, having been enacted on 06 Oct 1860. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 499. Defamation1512 words
- 464. Making a false document1223 words
- 300. Murder1172 words
- 378. Theft980 words
- 108. Abettor745 words
- 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property727 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. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 7b7d4fe6-206b-4e33-81f1-b98b018acaf6). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.