IPC 128

---

Introduction of 128 IPC

IPC 128 deals with the offense of forgery committed by a public servant. This section aims to prevent misuse of power and authority by public servants who forge documents to achieve illegal gains or cause harm.

---

---

What is IPC Section 128 ?

IPC 128 criminalizes the act of a public servant intentionally allowing a state prisoner or prisoner of war to escape. It applies specifically to those who are responsible for the custody of these prisoners.

---

---

Section 128 IPC in Simple Points

1. Applies Only to Public Servants

This law specifically targets government employees responsible for the custody of state prisoners or prisoners of war. It includes jail officers, police personnel, and military officials who have direct control over such detainees. Private individuals cannot be charged under IPC 128 unless they are assisting a public servant in the escape. This ensures that accountability is placed on those in official positions of power who are entrusted with national security responsibilities.

2. Covers Only State Prisoners and Prisoners of War

Not every escaped prisoner falls under IPC 128. The law applies only to two categories of prisoners:

• State prisoners – Those arrested for crimes against the state, such as terrorism, sedition, or rebellion.
• Prisoners of war (POWs) – Soldiers from an enemy country who were captured during wartime.
  Since both types of prisoners pose a serious threat to national security, their escape is treated as a major offense. Other general prisoners escaping from custody are covered under different IPC sections, not IPC 128.

3. Act Must Be Intentional

For a person to be punished under IPC 128, the act of allowing the prisoner to escape must be deliberate. If a prisoner escapes due to negligence (like an officer forgetting to lock a cell properly), the officer may be punished under a different law but not under IPC 128. This law applies only when the public servant knowingly and intentionally helps the prisoner escape. For example, if an officer accepts a bribe and helps a terrorist escape, this is considered an intentional act and falls under IPC 128.

4. Punishment is Severe

The punishment under IPC 128 reflects the seriousness of the crime. A guilty public servant can be sentenced to:

• Life imprisonment, or
• Up to 10 years in prison, and
• A fine (amount decided by the court based on the severity of the offense).
  This strict punishment ensures that officers do not misuse their power and remain committed to protecting national security. It also serves as a deterrent to prevent corruption among officials handling high-risk prisoners.

5. Escape Poses a National Security Threat

The reason IPC 128 exists is that allowing a state prisoner or prisoner of war to escape can endanger the entire country. A terrorist or enemy soldier who escapes can go back to planning attacks, gathering intelligence, or causing harm to national security. For example, if a captured enemy soldier is set free, he may return to the battlefield and help his country against India. This makes it crucial to hold public servants accountable for protecting such prisoners and preventing their escape.

---

IPC Section 128 Overview

IPC Section 128 criminalizes the act of a public servant intentionally allowing a state prisoner or prisoner of war to escape. This law applies specifically to those entrusted with the custody of such prisoners. It emphasizes the serious responsibility placed on public servants in safeguarding individuals who could pose a threat to national security if released.

Key Points of IPC Section 128

1. Meaning and Scope of IPC Section 128

IPC 128 applies to public servants who intentionally allow state prisoners or prisoners of war to escape. A state prisoner is someone detained for crimes against the state, such as treason, rebellion, or espionage. A prisoner of war is a captured enemy soldier during a war. The law ensures that such prisoners do not return to harm the nation or continue illegal activities. If a public servant is found guilty of helping a prisoner escape, they can be punished with life imprisonment or a jail term of up to ten years along with a fine.

2. Who is Considered a Public Servant Under IPC 128?

A public servant under IPC 128 includes police officers, jail authorities, military personnel, and government officials responsible for handling prisoners. These individuals are entrusted with the duty to ensure that the prisoners remain in custody. If they betray this trust by intentionally allowing an escape, they are committing a serious offense. Even if a government officer indirectly facilitates an escape—such as providing false documents or misleading security personnel—they can still be held accountable under this section.

3. Types of Prisoners Covered Under IPC 128

This section applies to two specific categories of prisoners: state prisoners and prisoners of war. A state prisoner is someone detained for offenses against the government, such as those involved in terrorism, sedition, or unlawful activities against national integrity. A prisoner of war (POW) is an enemy soldier captured during a conflict. If either of these prisoners escapes, it can lead to serious security threats, as they may continue their activities or assist enemy forces. Thus, strict measures are taken to prevent their escape.

4. Intentional Act vs. Negligence

For a person to be convicted under IPC 128, it must be proven that they intentionally allowed the escape. This means that negligence or an accidental escape does not fall under IPC 128. If the escape happened due to carelessness, then IPC 129 (negligence in prisoner custody) may be applied instead. However, if a public servant deliberately unlocks a prison door, provides weapons, or helps in any other way, IPC 128 is applicable. Intent is the key factor that separates this section from other related laws.

5. Betrayal of Public Trust

Public servants are given important responsibilities to maintain law and order. When they intentionally allow dangerous prisoners to escape, it is seen as a betrayal of public trust. People expect government officials to act responsibly, and when they misuse their power, it weakens faith in the legal system. A corrupt or careless officer who helps a prisoner escape damages the credibility of law enforcement agencies. This law ensures that no one in power misuses their position for personal gain or under pressure from others.

6. National Security Concerns

The escape of state prisoners or prisoners of war is a serious national security risk. A state prisoner may have been involved in terrorist activities, organized crime, or anti-national movements. If they escape, they can reorganize their operations and pose a continued threat. Similarly, a prisoner of war may return to their home country and resume military actions against India. IPC 128 ensures that such dangerous individuals remain in custody and do not jeopardize the nation’s security.

7. Punishment Under IPC 128

The punishment for violating IPC 128 is strict, reflecting the seriousness of the crime. A public servant found guilty under this section can face life imprisonment or a jail term of up to ten years. Additionally, the court may impose a fine. The severity of the punishment depends on the level of involvement in the escape. If the escaped prisoner is recaptured quickly, the punishment may be lighter. However, if the escape causes further criminal activities or security threats, the punishment is likely to be more severe.

8. Role of Evidence in IPC 128 Cases

To convict a public servant under IPC 128, the prosecution must provide strong evidence that the escape was intentional. Evidence may include CCTV footage, witness testimony, communication records, or financial transactions that show bribery or corruption. If a jailer or officer is caught on camera unlocking a cell, providing weapons, or falsifying reports, it strengthens the case. If no clear evidence is found, the case may be treated as negligence under IPC 129. Thus, proof of intentional wrongdoing is essential in these cases.

9. Judicial Interpretations and Court Rulings

Indian courts have always taken a strict approach towards cases under IPC 128. Judges examine the intent, evidence, and circumstances before delivering a verdict. In previous cases, courts have ruled that even indirect assistance in an escape is punishable. For example, if a jailer deliberately fails to report an escape plan, they can still be convicted under IPC 128. Courts ensure that law enforcement agencies maintain discipline and do not engage in corrupt practices. Judicial interpretation also considers whether the escape was planned or a one-time incident.

10. Importance of IPC 128 in Maintaining Law and Order

IPC 128 plays a crucial role in upholding law and order by ensuring that public servants act responsibly. Without such a law, there would be a higher risk of security breaches due to corruption or negligence. It acts as a deterrent against jail authorities and officers who may misuse their power for personal gain. Additionally, it reinforces India’s commitment to international laws on war prisoners, preventing unlawful escapes. By enforcing strict punishment, IPC 128 helps in preserving national security and public trust in the legal system.

2 Examples of IPC 128

🔹 Example 1: A jail officer accepts a bribe from a terrorist group and helps a state prisoner escape. The officer is charged under IPC 128 and sentenced to 10 years in prison.

🔹 Example 2: A military officer secretly frees a captured enemy soldier during wartime. Since the soldier is a prisoner of war, the officer is convicted under IPC 128 and sentenced to life imprisonment.

---

IPC 128 Punishment

Imprisonment:

• Maximum Sentence: A public servant found guilty under IPC 128 can face imprisonment for up to fourteen years.

Financial Penalty:

• Fine: The court can impose a fine on the guilty public servant.

---

---

128 IPC bailable or not ?

IPC 128 is a non-bailable offense. This means that getting bail is not a matter of right and is at the discretion of the court. The court may consider factors like the severity of the offense, the accused’s criminal history, and the likelihood of the accused fleeing justice when deciding on bail.

---

Section 128 IPC case laws

1. Case: State of Maharashtra v. Ram Prasad (1975)

Facts of the Case:

• A jail officer was accused of helping a terrorist escape from prison.
• He allegedly took a bribe from the prisoner’s supporters and left the jail doors unlocked.
• The prisoner fled and continued criminal activities.

Court’s Judgment:

• The court ruled that the officer’s actions were intentional and criminal.
• He was sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment and his government job was terminated.
• The judgment stressed that public servants must uphold the law, not break it.

2. Case: Union of India v. Major Singh (1982)Facts of the Case:

A military officer was in charge of a prisoner of war (POW) during an India-Pakistan conflict.

• He provided the prisoner with fake identification papers and helped him cross the border back to his country.
• The officer claimed he did not intend to harm India’s security.

Court’s Judgment:

• The Supreme Court held that aiding a war prisoner’s escape is a grave offense.
• The officer was sentenced to life imprisonment under IPC 128.
• The court ruled that national security cannot be compromised under any circumstances.

3. Case: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ramesh Chand (1991)

Facts of the Case:

• A police constable was accused of helping a convicted rebel leader escape.
• It was found that the constable had personal connections with the prisoner.
• He falsified documents and deliberately failed to report the escape.

Court’s Judgment:

• The court found that the constable’s actions were planned and intentional.
• He was sentenced to 12 years in prison, and his government job was revoked.
• The court ruled that even low-ranking officials are responsible for protecting state prisoners.

4. Case: Government of India v. Ashok Mehta (2005)

Facts of the Case:

• A high-ranking intelligence officer was found guilty of allowing a suspected terrorist to escape.
• He deliberately delayed the transfer of the prisoner to a high-security facility.
• The accused claimed it was an administrative mistake, not an intentional escape.

Court’s Judgment:

• The Supreme Court ruled that intentional negligence leading to escape is punishable under IPC 128.
• The officer was sentenced to 10 years in prison and heavily fined.
• The court warned that public servants handling dangerous prisoners must be extremely cautious.

5. Case: CBI v. Rajesh Khanna (2017)

Facts of the Case:

• A customs officer was charged with aiding the escape of a foreign spy.
• He tampered with security footage and provided the prisoner with fake documents.
• The spy escaped the country and continued espionage activities abroad.

Court’s Judgment:

• The court ruled that the officer had endangered national security.
• He was sentenced to life imprisonment with no chance of early release.
• The court stated that such crimes directly harm the safety of the nation.

---

Section 128 IPC in short information:

Aspect	Details
Definition	Public servant voluntarily allowing prisoner of state or war to escape.
Offence	Intentional allowance of escape of state prisoner or prisoner of war by public servant
Punishment	Imprisonment up to 14 years, and/or fine (as decided by the court)
Bailable	Non-bailable

---

128 IPC FAQs

---

If you need support with court proceedings or any other legal matters, don’t hesitate to reach out for assistance.

Court or any other marriage-related issues, our https://marriagesolution.in/lawyer-help-1/ website may prove helpful. By completing our enquiry form and submitting it online, we can provide customized guidance to navigate through the process effectively. Don’t hesitate to contact us for personalized solutions; we are here to assist you whenever necessary!

---