Indian criminal law | Updated 30 October 2026
IPC Section 225A and BNS Section 264: Omission to Apprehend or Prevent Escape by a Public Servant
Section 225A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 dealt with a public servant who failed to apprehend a person or allowed an escape in circumstances not specifically addressed by other provisions. The corresponding law is now Section 264 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
What does IPC Section 225A mean?
IPC Section 225A was a residual provision concerning a public servant legally bound to apprehend a person or keep that person in confinement. It applied where the case was not provided for by IPC Sections 221, 222 or 223 or another law then in force. The section distinguished deliberate failure from negligent failure and prescribed different punishments.
Corresponding law: BNS Section 264
Section 264, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is titled Omission to apprehend, or sufferance of escape, on part of public servant, in cases not otherwise provided for. It covers a public servant who is legally bound to apprehend or keep a person in confinement but omits to apprehend that person or suffers an escape, in a case not otherwise provided for by BNS Sections 259, 260 or 261 or another law in force.
Section 264 maintains separate penalties depending on whether the omission or escape was intentional or negligent.
Punishment under IPC 225A and BNS 264
| Nature of conduct | Maximum punishment | Fine |
|---|---|---|
| Intentional omission to apprehend or intentional sufferance of escape | Imprisonment of either description for up to 3 years | Fine may be imposed instead of, or in addition to, imprisonment |
| Negligent omission to apprehend or negligent sufferance of escape | Simple imprisonment for up to 2 years | Fine may be imposed instead of, or in addition to, imprisonment |
Essential ingredients of the offence
- Public servant: The accused must be a public servant within the meaning of the applicable law.
- Legal duty: A lawful duty to apprehend a particular person or keep that person in confinement must exist.
- Omission or escape: There must be a failure to apprehend, or an escape from confinement that the public servant suffers.
- Mental element: The conduct must be shown to be intentional or negligent, as alleged.
- Residual application: The case must not already be governed by the more specific provisions or another applicable law.
Intentional omission versus negligence
Intentional omission involves a deliberate failure to perform the relevant legal duty, or knowingly permitting an escape. Negligence concerns a failure to exercise the care required by that duty, without needing to establish a deliberate decision to allow the escape. Whether either is proved depends on the facts and evidence.
Illustrative situations
Example 1: A public servant with a valid legal duty deliberately refrains from apprehending a person in a case not covered by the specific escape-related provisions. Subject to proof of the statutory elements, the intentional category may arise.
Example 2: A public servant legally responsible for custody carelessly leaves a required security measure unattended, resulting in an escape. The negligent category may be relevant, provided no more specific provision applies.
These are explanatory examples, not findings of criminal liability. Mere escape does not automatically establish that a particular officer committed this offence.
Is the offence cognizable or bailable?
| Category under BNS 264 | Cognizability | Bail | Trial court |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intentional omission or sufferance | Non-cognizable | Bailable | Magistrate of the First Class |
| Negligent omission or sufferance | Non-cognizable | Bailable | Any Magistrate |
These classifications follow the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). A non-cognizable classification generally requires the applicable magistrate process for police investigation; it does not mean that the conduct is lawful.
Related provisions
- BNS Section 259 / IPC Section 221: Intentional omission to apprehend by a public servant bound to apprehend an offender.
- BNS Section 260 / IPC Section 222: Intentional omission involving a person under sentence or lawfully committed.
- BNS Section 261 / IPC Section 223: Negligently allowing escape from confinement or custody in specified circumstances.
- BNS Section 265 / IPC Section 225B: Residual resistance, obstruction, escape or rescue offences.
Official legal sources
- National Crime Records Bureau: BNS statutory text
- NCRB: IPC to BNS section correspondence
- Bureau of Police Research and Development: BNS reference PDF
- India Code: Central legislation database
Frequently asked questions
What is IPC Section 225A?
It addressed a public servant who, despite a legal duty, omitted to apprehend a person or allowed escape from custody in residual cases not otherwise covered by IPC Sections 221 to 223 or another law.
Which BNS section corresponds to IPC 225A?
Section 264 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 corresponds to IPC Section 225A.
What is the punishment under BNS Section 264?
Intentional conduct may be punished with imprisonment of either description up to three years, a fine, or both. Negligent conduct may be punished with simple imprisonment up to two years, a fine, or both.
Is BNS Section 264 bailable?
Both the intentional and negligent categories are non-cognizable and bailable under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Legal note: This article provides general statutory information. The applicable offence, procedural classification and available defences depend on the facts, date of conduct and law in force.