Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita: Section 261 – Escape from confinement or custody negligently suffered by public servant

Whoever, being a public servant legally bound as such public servant 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, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

BNS Classification

• Simple imprisonment for 2 years, or fine, or both.
• Non-cognizable
• Bailable
• Triable by Any Magistrate.

Simplified Explanation

Section 261 deals with negligence by a public servant responsible for the custody of individuals charged with or convicted of a crime. Unlike Section 260, which focuses on intentional actions, this section addresses situations where escape occurs due to carelessness or oversight.

Key Components of Section 261

1. Who is Covered?
   • Public servants legally required to:
     • Keep individuals in confinement who are charged with or convicted of an offense.
     • Keep persons lawfully committed to custody (e.g., under judicial orders).
2. Nature of the Act:
   • The escape of the confined individual happens because of the negligence of the public servant, not intentional actions.
   • Examples of negligence:
     • Failing to secure locks or restraints properly.
     • Not adequately supervising detainees.
     • Ignoring or overlooking escape attempts.
3. Who Escapes?
   • The individual escaping could be:
     • Charged with an offense (awaiting trial).
     • Convicted of an offense (serving a sentence).
     • Lawfully committed to custody (e.g., under preventive detention).

Punishment

• Imprisonment:
  • Simple imprisonment for up to 2 years.
• Fine:
  • As determined by the court.
• Both:
  • The court may impose both imprisonment and a fine, depending on the circumstances.

Intent vs. Negligence

The key distinction between Section 261 and Section 260 lies in intent:

• Section 260: Intentional omissions or assistance in escape.
• Section 261: Negligence, where no deliberate intent exists, but failure to perform duties leads to escape.

Purpose of the Section

1. Accountability for Negligence:
   • Public servants must exercise due diligence in their duties. Negligence in custodial responsibilities can have serious legal and social consequences.
2. Ensuring Custodial Security:
   • Encourages proper protocols and vigilance in managing detainees.
3. Maintaining Public Confidence:
   • Ensures that public servants face penalties for lapses, maintaining trust in the justice system.

Examples of Applicability

1. A prison warden leaves a gate unlocked, allowing an inmate to escape.
2. A police officer tasked with escorting a suspect fails to supervise them properly, and they flee while in transit.
3. A guard ignores a detainee’s repeated attempts to tamper with their restraints, leading to escape.

In all these cases, the escape results from carelessness rather than intent, making Section 261 applicable.

Comparison to the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

Section 261 corresponds to Section 223 of the IPC, with similar provisions but as part of the revised legal framework under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.