Indian Penal Code, 1860 · Chapter XI: Of False Evidence and Offences against Public Justice
Section 229A: Failure by person released on bail or bond to appear in Court
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to offences and proceedings from before that date.
In plain words
A person charged with an offence and released on bail or bond who fails without sufficient cause to appear in court as required is punishable with imprisonment of either description for up to one year, or fine, or both. The person must prove sufficient cause.
- This is in addition to the punishment for the original offence and does not affect the court's power to forfeit the bond.
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, having been charged with an offence and released on bail or on bond without sureties, 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.]
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 229A
-
Pinki v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.
Whether the High Court erred in passing various orders granting bail to accused persons in matters involving offences of serious nature of child trafficking.
-
State by the Inspector of Police v. B. Ramu
In a case involving recovery of huge quantity of narcotic substance (232.5 kg of ganja), wherein the Respondent-accused was indicted as being the conspirator for procurement/supply of the ganja so recovered, High Court…