BNS Section 261 – Escape from Confinement or Custody Negligently Suffered by Public Servant
Law and order depend on discipline—not just from the public but also from those who enforce the law.
That’s where BNS Section 261 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 steps in. It deals with “Escape from confinement or custody negligently suffered by public servant.”
This section addresses cases where a prisoner or accused escapes—not due to force or violence—but due to negligence by a public servant responsible for custody.
Why This Section Matters
India has a vast criminal justice system. Thousands of undertrial prisoners, accused persons, and convicts are under custody every day.
If someone in custody escapes, it threatens the justice process. But if the escape happens because a public servant was careless—it’s a failure of duty.
BNS Section 261 ensures that public servants remain accountable. If their carelessness allows someone to flee, they can be punished.
BNS Section 261 – Escape from confinement or custody negligently suffered by public servant
“Whoever, being a public servant legally bound to keep in confinement any person charged with or convicted of any offence, or lawfully committed to custody, negligently suffers such person to escape from confinement or custody, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”
Breaking it Down
This section applies only to public servants who are:
- Legally responsible for keeping a person in custody or jail
- Negligent in their duty, causing the person to escape
- Responsible whether the person is accused or already convicted
BNS Section 261: What is “Negligently Suffered Escape”?
It means the public servant didn’t actively help the escape—but due to carelessness, the escape happened.
Examples of negligence:
- Leaving the cell unlocked
- Not checking handcuffs properly
- Allowing prisoners unsupervised movement
- Letting an outsider meet without proper checks
Short Note
BNS Section 261 punishes public servants who fail to maintain custody due to negligence, not intentional misconduct. It protects the system from weak links and promotes accountability.
BNS Section 261: Case Law Reference
Though BNS is new, this section is similar to Section 223 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Old case laws under IPC help interpret the same offence under the new code.
Case 1: Krishan Lal v. State of Haryana (2002 CriLJ 1125)
Facts: A head constable allowed undertrial prisoners to move freely. One escaped.
Held: The court held him liable under IPC Section 223. His lack of supervision enabled the escape.
Relevance: Under BNS Section 261, similar negligence would be punishable.
Case 2: Sohan Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1955 P&H 204)
Facts: A constable allowed prisoners to bathe in the river unsupervised. One absconded.
Held: It was clear negligence. The court stated that duty of care was violated.
Relevance: This sets a precedent for punishment under BNS Section 261.
Case 3: State v. Kewal (AIR 1965 Raj 250)
Facts: A jailor forgot to lock a cell door. A convict escaped during the night.
Held: Even if unintentional, such negligence makes the public servant liable.
Relevance: Under BNS Section 261, similar facts would attract punishment.
Hypothetical Example
A sub-inspector takes an undertrial to court. On the way, they stop at a tea stall. The accused is allowed to step aside briefly—unsupervised. He runs away.
No force was used. No keys were stolen. Just negligence.
This fits perfectly under BNS Section 261.
Punishment Under BNS Section 261
Simple imprisonment up to 2 years
Or fine
Or both
Note: This is not a bailable offence if the escape has serious implications. However, courts often consider the circumstances.
Is Intent Required?
No. This section is about negligence, not intent.
So, even if the public servant didn’t want the person to escape, they are responsible if their careless behavior caused it.
Difference Between Section 261 and Other Sections
| Section | Focus | Applies To | Key Element |
|---|---|---|---|
| BNS 259 | Intentional omission to apprehend | Public servant | Willful failure |
| BNS 260 | Intentional allowing to escape | Public servant | With knowledge or consent |
| BNS 261 | Escape due to negligence | Public servant | Carelessness, not intention |
So, Section 261 is all about “Oops, I messed up”—but that mess-up has legal consequences.
Importance in Today’s Context
In recent years, there have been cases of:
- Prisoners escaping during hospital visits
- Undertrials fleeing during transit
- Accused persons vanishing from police stations
In most cases, it’s not a jailbreak. It’s sloppy security.
BNS Section 261 reminds public servants to stay alert. Their minor mistake can lead to a major escape—and punishment.
Legal View
Courts have stressed that custodial responsibility is a sacred trust. The officer or jail staff is not just doing a job—they’re holding someone on behalf of the judiciary.
Negligence not only harms the case but can endanger society.
Hence, BNS Section 261 keeps the pressure on public servants to maintain strict discipline.
Conclusion
BNS Section 261 sends a clear message—negligence is not excused when someone escapes from lawful custody.
It ensures that public servants remain watchful and accountable. Whether it’s a constable, jailor, or escort officer—if you’re responsible for a person in custody, you must ensure they don’t flee due to your oversight.
Even if it’s a genuine mistake, the law doesn’t ignore it.
In a country striving for faster and cleaner justice, laws like Section 261 help plug the small but dangerous holes in the system.
Disclaimer
This article is meant for informational purposes only. It simplifies complex legal provisions for easier understanding. For official interpretations or legal proceedings, always refer to the official text of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 or consult a qualified legal expert.
