Section 269 punishes a person who has been charged with an offence and released on bail bond or on bond, and who fails without sufficient cause to appear in Court in accordance with the terms of the bail or bond. The section itself places on that person the burden of proving the sufficient cause. The punishment is imprisonment of either description for up to one year, or fine, or both; the section’s Explanation says this is in addition to any punishment on a conviction for the offence charged.
Verified against the National Crime Records Bureau’s official BNS–IPC concordance (Sankalan Portal). The concordance maps Section 269 to IPC Section 229A and carries no “Change” tag for the row, so this page uses the label Exact correspondence (per the concordance). One limit must be stated plainly: the copy of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 consulted for this page does not reproduce Section 229A, so the text of Section 269 could not be compared word by word with the text of the IPC section. The label below therefore rests on the concordance alone.
| BNS 269 | Covers | IPC, 1860 equivalent | Category |
|---|---|---|---|
| 269 | Failure by person released on bail bond or bond to appear in Court | S.229A “Failure by person released on bail or bond to appear in court” (title as printed in the concordance) | Exact (per concordance) |
Because the text of IPC Section 229A is not reproduced in the IPC text consulted for this page, this page states no list of differences between the two sections and makes no claim that their wording is the same. The concordance’s own title for the IPC row (“Failure by person released on bail or bond to appear in court”) differs slightly in words from the BNS marginal heading (“Failure by person released on bail bond or bond to appear in Court”), which is noted here only as the two titles appear. Readers who need the exact IPC wording should read IPC Section 229A directly.
Whoever, having been charged with an offence and released on bail bond or on bond, fails without sufficient cause (the burden of proving which shall lie upon him), to appear in Court in accordance with the terms of the bail or bond, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
Explanation.—The punishment under this section is—
(a) in addition to the punishment to which the offender would be liable on a conviction for the offence with which he has been charged; and
(b) without prejudice to the power of the Court to order forfeiture of the bond.
Source: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act No. 45 of 2023), as published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary.
Section 269 applies to a person who has already been charged with an offence and released on bail bond or on bond, and who then fails, without sufficient cause, to appear in Court in accordance with the terms of the bail or bond. Every one of those ingredients is in the text: the earlier charge, the release on a bail bond or a bond, the failure to appear, the absence of sufficient cause, and the link to the “terms of the bail or bond”. The parenthesis “(the burden of proving which shall lie upon him)” is part of the section itself: it says that the burden of proving the sufficient cause lies upon the person who failed to appear.
Two of the key words come from the BNSS. Section 2(39) of the Sanhita provides that words used but not defined in the Sanhita, and defined in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, have the meanings given there. BNSS Section 2(1)(d) says a “bail bond” means an undertaking for release with surety, and Section 2(1)(e) says a “bond” means a personal bond or an undertaking for release without surety. BNSS Section 2(1)(f) says “charge” includes any head of charge when the charge contains more heads than one; it does not say more on when a person is “charged”, and this page does not go beyond the words used. “Court” is defined in Section 2(5) of the Sanhita. “Sufficient cause” is not defined in Section 2, so what counts as sufficient cause is not spelled out by the section beyond placing the burden of proving it on the person who failed to appear.
The Explanation to the section has two parts, both inside this one item. Clause (a) says the punishment under this section is in addition to the punishment to which the offender would be liable on a conviction for the offence with which he has been charged, so the two are not alternatives. Clause (b) says the punishment is without prejudice to the power of the Court to order forfeiture of the bond; BNSS Section 491 (Procedure when bond has been forfeited) sets out a procedure for a bond that has been forfeited.
The punishment is imprisonment of either description (simple or rigorous, under Section 4(c)) for a term which may extend to one year, or fine, or both. The section states no maximum for the fine; Section 8(1) provides that where no sum is expressed to which a fine may extend, the amount of fine is unlimited but shall not be excessive. The BNSS First Schedule lists the offence as cognizable (BNSS Section 2(1)(g): a police officer may, in accordance with the First Schedule, arrest without warrant in a cognizable case), non-bailable, and triable by any Magistrate; it is in neither compounding table of BNSS Section 359. For a non-bailable offence, BNSS Section 480(1) provides that a person accused of a non-bailable offence may be released on bail, subject to the conditions set out in that section; unlike BNSS Section 478 for a bailable offence (“shall be released on bail”), the wording is “may”.
The section itself says so: it puts the words “the burden of proving which shall lie upon him” in a parenthesis directly after “fails without sufficient cause”, so the burden of proving the sufficient cause lies upon the person who failed to appear. The section does not define “sufficient cause” or list examples.
In addition. Clause (a) of the Explanation says the punishment under this section is in addition to the punishment to which the offender would be liable on a conviction for the offence with which he has been charged. Clause (b) adds that it is without prejudice to the Court’s power to order forfeiture of the bond.
Under the First Schedule to the BNSS it is a cognizable and non-bailable offence, triable by any Magistrate. Because it is non-bailable, BNSS Section 480(1) applies, under which a person accused of a non-bailable offence “may be released on bail” subject to the conditions in that section; bail is not a matter of right in the way BNSS Section 478 makes it for a bailable offence. The offence is not compoundable, since it appears in neither compounding table of BNSS Section 359.
Section 2(39) of the Sanhita brings in the BNSS definitions: under BNSS Section 2(1)(d) a “bail bond” means an undertaking for release with surety, and under Section 2(1)(e) a “bond” means a personal bond or an undertaking for release without surety. Section 269 covers a person released on either.
No word-by-word comparison was possible: the concordance maps Section 269 to IPC Section 229A, but the copy of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 consulted for this page does not reproduce that section. The concordance shows no “Change” tag for the row. For the exact IPC wording, read IPC Section 229A directly.