Indian Penal Code, 1860 · Chapter XI: Of False Evidence and Offences against Public Justice
Section 224: Resistance or obstruction by a person to his lawful apprehension
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to matters and proceedings from before that date, as the repealing law provides.
In plain words
Intentionally resisting or illegally obstructing one's own lawful arrest for an offence one is charged with or convicted of, or escaping or attempting to escape from lawful custody for it, is punishable with imprisonment of either description for up to two years, or fine, or both. This is in addition to the punishment for the original offence.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Official text
Whoever intentionally offers any resistance or illegal obstruction to the lawful apprehension of himself for any offence with which he is charged or of which he has been convicted, or escapes or attempts to escape from any custody in which he is lawfully detained for any such offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Explanation.—The punishment in this section is in addition to the punishment for which the person to be apprehended or detained in custody was liable for the offence with which he was charged, or of which he was convicted.
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 224
-
Basamsetti Rama Devi v. The State of A.P. & Ors.
In cases relating to quashing of criminal complaint against the accused police officers-respondents in matters of custodial death, whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the committal order and…
-
Jadunath Singh v. Arving Kumar & Ors. Etc.
Criminal appeal filed by appellant Jadunath Singh against the Allahabad High Court’s decision to grant bail to Arvind Kumar, Chandra Kumar @ Chandu, and Rishi Kumar, who were convicted for life imprisonment under the…
- Union of India & Anr. v. Shaikh Istiyaq Ahmed & Ors.
- Parveen @ Sonu v. The State of Haryana
- Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel v. Rajivbhai Dudabhai Patel & Others
- Ved Mitier Gill v. Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh and Others
- Kushalbhai Ratanbhai Rohit & Ors. v. The State of Gujarat
- State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar & Ors. Etc
- State of Punjab v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors.
- Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat and Ors
- Manjit Singh @ Mange v. Cbi, Through Its S.P.
- Dinesh M.N. (S.P.) v. State of Gujarat
- Sadashio Mundaji Bhalerao v. State of Maharashtra
- Esher Singh v. State of Andhra Pradesh
- Ram Avtar and Ors. v. The State of U.P.
- State of Haryana and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh
- State of Haryana v. Ghaseeta Ram
- Nadodi Jayaraman Etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu
- Pushpadevi M. Jatia v. M.L. Wadhavan, Addl. Secretary Government of India & Ors.
- Tulshi Rabidas v. The State of West Bengal
- Birichh Bhuian and Others v. State of Bihar
- Kanta Prashad v. Delhi Administration
- Santosh Kumar v. Bhai Mool Singh
- Kathi Raning Rawat v. The State of Saurashtra