top of page

IPC Section 220

IPC Section 220 defines the offence of wrongful confinement by a public servant, detailing its scope and punishment.

IPC Section 220 addresses the wrongful confinement committed by a public servant. This section is significant because it holds public officials accountable when they unlawfully restrict someone's freedom. It ensures that those in authority do not misuse their power to confine individuals without legal justification.

Wrongful confinement by a public servant is a serious offence as it violates personal liberty and the rule of law. Understanding this section helps citizens recognize their rights and the limits of official authority.

IPC Section 220 – Exact Provision

This section makes it clear that if a public servant unlawfully confines someone, they can face imprisonment, fine, or both. The term 'wrongful confinement' means restraining a person’s liberty without lawful authority. The law targets public servants specifically, emphasizing their duty to act within legal boundaries.

  • Applies only to public servants.

  • Involves unlawful restriction of personal liberty.

  • Punishment can be imprisonment up to two years, fine, or both.

  • Focuses on wrongful acts without legal justification.

  • Protects individuals from abuse of official power.

Purpose of IPC Section 220

The main objective of IPC Section 220 is to prevent misuse of power by public servants. It safeguards personal freedom by penalizing officials who confine individuals without lawful cause. This section upholds the principle that public authority must be exercised responsibly and within the law.

  • Deters unlawful confinement by officials.

  • Protects citizens’ fundamental rights.

  • Maintains trust in public institutions.

Cognizance under IPC Section 220

Cognizance of offences under this section is generally taken by courts when a complaint or report is filed. Since it involves a public servant, the procedure may require prior sanction from competent authority before prosecution.

  • Courts take cognizance upon complaint or police report.

  • Prior sanction may be necessary for prosecution.

  • Offence is cognizable and non-bailable.

Bail under IPC Section 220

Offence under Section 220 is non-bailable due to its serious nature involving public servants. The court may grant bail depending on facts, but it is not a matter of right. The accused must satisfy the court that they will not misuse the liberty.

  • Bail is not a right; granted at court’s discretion.

  • Non-bailable offence due to public servant involvement.

  • Court considers nature and circumstances before bail.

Triable By (Which Court Has Jurisdiction?)

Cases under IPC Section 220 are triable by Magistrate courts. Depending on the severity and connected offences, Sessions Court may also have jurisdiction. The trial ensures due process and fair hearing for the accused public servant.

  • Primarily triable by Magistrate courts.

  • Sessions Court may try in certain cases.

  • Jurisdiction depends on offence gravity and connected charges.

Example of IPC Section 220 in Use

Suppose a police officer arrests a person without any legal warrant or justification and keeps them confined in a police station for several days. The person files a complaint alleging wrongful confinement. Under IPC Section 220, the officer can be prosecuted for abusing their official power. If proven, the officer may face imprisonment or fine. Conversely, if the officer had lawful authority, no offence would be made out.

Historical Relevance of IPC Section 220

This section was introduced to address abuses by public servants during colonial times when arbitrary detention was common. It evolved to protect individual liberty against misuse of official power.

  • Introduced in the original IPC of 1860.

  • Strengthened after landmark cases on unlawful detention.

  • Reflects colonial-era concerns on official abuse.

Modern Relevance of IPC Section 220

In 2025, IPC Section 220 remains vital to check misuse of authority by public servants. Courts have interpreted it to include various forms of confinement beyond physical detention, adapting to modern contexts. It plays a key role in protecting human rights and ensuring accountability.

  • Expanded interpretation by courts to cover diverse confinement forms.

  • Supports human rights frameworks in India.

  • Encourages transparency and responsibility in public service.

Related Sections to IPC Section 220

  • Section 340 – Wrongful confinement

  • Section 221 – Public servant framing wrong charge

  • Section 222 – Public servant fabricating evidence

  • Section 341 – Punishment for wrongful restraint

  • Section 342 – Punishment for wrongful confinement

  • Section 197 – Prosecution of public servants

Case References under IPC Section 220

  1. State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996 AIR 1393, SC)

    – The Court held that wrongful confinement by public servants violates fundamental rights and requires strict proof.

  2. K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1990 AIR 123, SC)

    – Established the necessity of sanction before prosecuting public servants under this section.

  3. Rameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar (2006 AIR 252, SC)

    – Affirmed that unlawful detention by officials attracts IPC Section 220 penalties.

Key Facts Summary for IPC Section 220

  • Section:

    220

  • Title:

    Wrongful Confinement by Public Servant

  • Offence Type:

    Non-bailable; Cognizable

  • Punishment:

    Imprisonment up to 2 years, or fine, or both

  • Triable By:

    Magistrate Court

Conclusion on IPC Section 220

IPC Section 220 plays a crucial role in maintaining the balance between authority and individual liberty. By penalizing wrongful confinement by public servants, it protects citizens from unlawful detention and abuse of power. This section reinforces the rule of law and accountability in governance.

Its application ensures that public officials act within legal limits, fostering trust in public institutions. In modern India, IPC Section 220 remains a vital safeguard for human rights and civil liberties, reflecting the evolving standards of justice and fairness.

FAQs on IPC Section 220

Who is considered a public servant under IPC Section 220?

A public servant includes government officials, police officers, and others authorized by law to perform public duties. They are subject to this section when acting in their official capacity.

Is IPC Section 220 a bailable offence?

No, it is a non-bailable offence. Bail is granted at the discretion of the court based on the case facts and circumstances.

What punishment does IPC Section 220 prescribe?

The punishment can be imprisonment up to two years, a fine, or both, depending on the severity and judicial discretion.

Can a public servant be prosecuted without sanction?

No, prior sanction from the appropriate authority is generally required before prosecuting a public servant under this section.

How does IPC Section 220 protect citizens?

It prevents misuse of power by public servants by penalizing unlawful confinement, thereby safeguarding personal liberty and human rights.

Related Sections

IT Act Section 29 addresses penalties for misusing digital signatures, ensuring trust in electronic authentication.

CrPC Section 96 details the procedure for appeal against an order of acquittal or conviction in criminal cases.

CrPC Section 414 defines the offence of cheating by personation and its legal consequences under Indian law.

Section 151 of the Income Tax Act 1961 empowers the Income Tax Authorities to take necessary actions for effective tax administration in India.

Consumer Protection Act 2019 Section 53 outlines the powers of Consumer Commissions to summon and enforce attendance of witnesses and production of documents.

CPC Section 67 covers the procedure for arrest before judgment in civil suits to secure the decree amount.

IPC Section 114 empowers courts to presume certain facts based on common experience and reason when direct evidence is absent.

Understand when a contract is legal in India, including essential elements, enforceability, and common misconceptions.

Understand the legal status of LiveLeak in India, including access restrictions, content laws, and enforcement practices.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138 covers cheque dishonour liability and the legal process for enforcing payment through criminal complaint.

IPC Section 348 defines wrongful confinement in a place of worship or religious assembly to outrage religious feelings.

IPC Section 225 defines the offence of concealing a person to prevent their appearance in court or custody.

Sclerotherapy for piles is legal in India when performed by qualified medical professionals under regulated conditions.

Consumer Protection Act 2019 Section 2(11) defines 'defect' in goods, crucial for consumer rights and product liability claims.

Starter pistols are illegal in India without proper licenses and permissions under firearm laws.

IPC Section 64 provides immunity from punishment for acts done by a child under seven years of age, ensuring protection for minors.

IPC Section 14 defines 'Court of Justice' and clarifies its scope in legal proceedings under the Indian Penal Code.

Owning a thermal scope in India is conditionally legal with strict regulations and licensing under arms laws.

Independent escorts are illegal in India under laws prohibiting prostitution and related activities.

Consumer Protection Act 2019 Section 31 details the procedure for filing complaints with Consumer Commissions to resolve consumer disputes effectively.

IPC Section 337 addresses causing hurt by rash or negligent acts, defining liability for injuries without intent.

Tor is legal in India but using it for illegal activities is punishable under Indian law.

Evidence Act 1872 Section 149 defines when acts of one member of a criminal group are evidence against all members involved.

Section 175 of the Income Tax Act 1961 deals with penalties for failure to comply with notices or directions under the Act.

Advertisements are legal in India but must follow strict rules under the Advertising Standards Council and laws like the Consumer Protection Act.

Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 46A deals with the procedure for transfer of assets in case of amalgamation or demerger.

Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 267 restricts deductions for expenses between closely connected persons to prevent tax avoidance.

bottom of page