Harbouring offender who has escaped from custody or whose apprehension has been ordered-if a capital offence; if punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment
Section 216 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with harbouring offender who has escaped from custody or whose apprehension has been ordered-if a capital offence; if punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment. Harbouring offender who has escaped from custody or whose apprehension has been ordered.--Whenever any person convicted of or charged with an offence, being in lawful custody for that offence, escapes from such custody, or whenever a public servant, in the exercise of the lawful powers of such publi 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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.
Harbouring offender who has escaped from custody or whose apprehension has been ordered.--Whenever any person convicted of or charged with an offence, being in lawful custody for that offence, escapes from such custody,
or whenever a public servant, in the exercise of the lawful powers of such public servant, orders a certain person to be apprehended for an offence, whoever, knowing of such escape or order for apprehension, harbours or conceals that person with the intention of preventing him from being apprehended, shall be punished in the manner following, that is to say,
if a capital offence;
if a capital offence;--if the offence for which the person was in custody or is ordered to be apprehended is punishable with death, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine;
if punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment.
if punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment.- if the offence is punishable with [imprisonment for life] or imprisonment for ten years, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, with or without fine;
and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year and not to ten years, he shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for such offence or with fine, or with both.
["Offence" in this section includes also any act or omission of which a person is alleged to have been guilty out of [India], which, if he had been guilty of it in [India], would have been punishable as an offence, and for which he is, under any law relating to extradition, or otherwise liable to be apprehended or detained in custody in [India], and every such act or omission shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be punishable as if the accused person had been guilty of it in [India].]
Exception.-The provision does not extend to the case in which the harbour or concealment is by the husband or wife of the person to be apprehended.
Section 216, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 253 Harbouring offender who has escaped from custody or whose apprehension has been ordered Text carried over almost unchanged 89%
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 2
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.
-
Ashish Kumar Singh @ Ashiqi vs The Sate of Bihar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused has been in custody for a substantial period and the primary evidence sought by the investigating agency (looted articles) has not been recovered from the accused's possession, bail should be granted, particularly when the only recovery is of a firearm unrelated to the primary charge of dacoity. The court must balance the right to liberty against the severity of charges and the strength of evidence.
On this section: Harbouring offender - charge against the petitioner
-
Vavilala Janardhan vs The State of Telangana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An accused who fails to report to jail after parole extension cannot be granted bail merely on the ground of suffering from a chronic illness that requires only outpatient medical treatment. The fact that medical treatment is available on an outpatient basis demonstrates that the condition does not prevent the accused from complying with court-ordered jail reporting. Such non-compliance, coupled with the accused's ability to remain outside jail for an extended period, demonstrates a lack of credibility and trustworthiness, making the accused ineligible for bail. Medical certificates showing only outpatient treatment do not constitute sufficient justification for violating court orders.
On this section: Offence charged against Accused-2 for harbouring the petitioner
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.
-
… the police filed a chargesheet on 14.12.2018 in FIR No.452/18, for alleged offences under Sections 406, 408, 420, 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the "IPC"). 6. Similarly, a chargesheet was filed on 18.07.2019 in FIR No.748 of 2017 for alleged offences under Sections 114, 120B, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 216 of the IPC. Likewise a chargesheet was filed on 24.10.2019 in FIR No.356/2019 for offences under Sections 120B, 406, 408, 420, 387 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 7. The police also filed supplementary chargesheets, on 06.01.2020 in the first case and on 08.11.2019 in the third case. 8. Contending (i) that …
Questions about Section 216
What have the courts held on Section 216 of the Indian Penal Code?
Ashish Kumar Singh @ Ashiqi vs The Sate of Bihar (06 Aug 2019) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Harbouring offender - charge against the petitioner. Another 1 judgment on this section is set out below. They run from 2017 to 2019.
How do I find court cases under Section 216 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 216, section 216 IPC, section 216 of the Indian Penal Code. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 2 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Ashish Kumar Singh @ Ashiqi vs The Sate of Bihar (06 Aug 2019).
What should I read with Section 216 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 253 (Harbouring offender who has escaped from custody or whose apprehension has been ordered), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 216 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 216 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 216, 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.