Resistance or obstruction to lawful apprehension, or escape or rescue in cases not otherwise provided for
Section 225B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with resistance or obstruction to lawful apprehension, or escape or rescue in cases not otherwise provided for. Whoever, in any case not provided for in section 224 or section 225 or in any other law for the time being in force, intentionally offers any resistance or illegal obstruction to the lawful apprehension of himself or of any other person, or escapes or attempts to escape from any custody in which he 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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, in any case not provided for in section 224 or section 225 or in any other law for the time being in force, intentionally offers any resistance or illegal obstruction to the lawful apprehension of himself or of any other person, or escapes or attempts to escape from any custody in which he is lawfully detained, or rescues or attempts to rescue any other person from any custody in which that person is lawfully detained, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.] Sch. 4. The words "penal servitude" rep. by Act 17 of 1949, s. 2. 5. Ss. 225A and 225B were subs. by Act 10 of 1886, s. 24(1), for s. 225A, which had been ins. by Act 27 of 1870, s.9.
Section 225B, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 265 Resistance or obstruction to lawful apprehension or escape or rescue in cases not otherwise provided for Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
-
Pratheesh vs State of Kerala
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When accused persons attack public servants with dangerous weapons with the intention to rescue a person from lawful custody, the circumstances including the nature of weapons, severity of injuries, and number of officials attacked establish the intention to commit murder under Section 307 IPC. Identification of accused by eyewitnesses at trial is admissible without formal identification parade when witnesses had sufficient opportunity to observe the accused during extended overt acts. A mother's natural emotional reaction (crying) when her son is arrested does not constitute criminal liability under Sections 307, 333, or 225B IPC. Intentional resistance or illegal obstruction to lawful apprehension under Section 225B IPC requires active resistance, not mere running away.
On this section: Resistance or obstruction to lawful apprehension - Applied to 1st and 2nd accused for rescuing 4th accused from lawful custody; not applied to 3rd and 4th accused
-
Nabeel K.p vs State of Kerala
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the lower court, after detailed evaluation of evidence, concludes that the prosecution has failed to prove the essential ingredients of the offence (formation of unlawful assembly and causing hurt to public servants), and such judgment becomes final without challenge, the High Court may exercise its discretionary power to quash further proceedings against accused who did not participate in the trial, provided that costs are imposed to compensate for the delay caused by their absence from proceedings.
On this section: Offence related to public servants - charged against the petitioners
-
Anwar vs State of Kerala
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While a defense of police constable's intoxication cannot be raised for the first time in a revision petition when it was not suggested during cross-examination of witnesses, the evidence regarding the constable's intoxication can be considered as a mitigating factor in sentencing for escape from custody under Section 225A IPC. The court has discretion to impose a proportionate sentence, which may include a fine instead of imprisonment, when circumstances warrant such modification.
On this section: Mentioned in the order as the offense for which the accused was initially arrested in Crime No. 160/99, though the revision petition specifically concerns Section 225A conviction
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.
-
… Crl.M.C.No.1421 of 2017 ================= Dated this the 21st day of March, 2017 ORDER Petitioners herein are the accused in C.C.No.650 of 2014 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Koyilandy arising from Crime No.446 of 2011 of Koyilandy Police Station for offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 332, 225B r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It was alleged by the prosecution that on 22.05.2011 at about 8.40p.m., accused formed into an unlawful assembly and attacked CWs to 3, who were public servants, engaged in their official duties. On the basis of the crime registered, investigation was conducted and final …
-
… Certainly, the act of assisting the prosecutrix in escaping from the Welfare Home was a wrongful act. However, there are no ingredients of an offence of kidnapping in the matter. But the facts of the case would attract the penal provisions of Section 225B of the Indian Penal Code (In short, 'the IPC'). The prosecutrix was lawfully detained in the Welfare Home and the provisions of Section 224 not being applicable to her case, (as she was detained not in connection with any offence allegedly committed by her, but by reason of her being a victim of an offence) the case …
Questions about Section 225B
What have the courts held on Section 225B of the Indian Penal Code?
Pratheesh vs State of Kerala (20 May 2020) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Resistance or obstruction to lawful apprehension - Applied to 1st and 2nd accused for rescuing 4th accused from lawful custody; not applied to 3rd and 4th accused. Another 2 judgments on this section are set out below. They run from 2009 to 2020.
How do I find court cases under Section 225B 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 225B, section 225B IPC, section 225B of the Indian Penal Code. 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 Pratheesh vs State of Kerala (20 May 2020).
What should I read with Section 225B of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 224 (Resistance or obstruction by a person to his lawful apprehension), section 225 (Resistance or obstruction to lawful apprehension of another person), so none of them can safely be read on its own. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 265 (Resistance or obstruction to lawful apprehension or escape or rescue in cases not otherwise provided for), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 225B of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 225B of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 225B, 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.