IPC 129

Introduction of 129 IPC

IPC Section 129 criminalizes the act of a public servant intentionally allowing a person in their lawful custody to escape, or voluntarily aiding or assisting in such an escape. This law aims to ensure that public servants uphold their duty and prevent any breach of justice by allowing prisoners to escape.

---

What is IPC Section 129 ?

IPC Section 129 criminalizes the act of a public servant intentionally allowing a person in their lawful custody to escape or voluntarily aiding or assisting in such an escape. This law ensures that public servants uphold their duty and prevent any breach of justice by allowing prisoners to escape.

---

IPC Section 129 Overview

IPC Section 129 criminalizes the act of a public servant negligently allowing a state prisoner or prisoner of war to escape. Unlike Section 128, which deals with intentional acts, this section focuses on carelessness or lack of due diligence. It emphasizes the importance of vigilance and responsibility in handling prisoners who could pose a threat to national security if released.

IPC Section 129 in 6 Key Points

1. Ensuring Custody:

• Explanation: IPC 129 ensures that public servants maintain their duty of keeping prisoners in custody without allowing escapes.
• Details: Public servants have a legal obligation to keep prisoners secure. This law ensures they perform their duty diligently.

2. Focus on Public Servants:

• Explanation: The law applies specifically to public servants responsible for the custody of prisoners.
• Details: Jailers, prison wardens, police officers, and other officials in charge of prisoners must adhere to this law.

3. Intentional Act:

• Explanation: IPC 129 emphasizes intentional actions, meaning the public servant must have deliberately allowed the escape.
• Details: Accidental escapes are not covered under this law. The intention to allow escape is crucial for prosecution.

4. Punishments:

• Explanation: The law imposes severe penalties to deter public servants from enabling escapes.
• Details: Penalties include imprisonment for up to three years, a fine, or both, depending on the case specifics.

5. Bailable Offense:

• Explanation: IPC 129 is a bailable offense, meaning those arrested can usually get bail.
• Details: Bail is often granted, but the court can refuse it if there are concerns about the individual fleeing or causing further trouble.

6. Ensuring Justice:

• Explanation: The law ensures that prisoners remain in custody, maintaining the integrity of the justice system.
• Details: By holding public servants accountable, IPC 129 helps uphold justice and prevent breaches of duty.

---

IPC 129 Punishment

Imprisonment: Maximum imprisonment is up to three years.

Fine: The court can impose a fine.

---

129 IPC bailable or not ?

IPC 129 is a bailable offense. This means if someone is arrested under this section, they can usually get bail. The police or court can grant bail, often without needing to go before a judge. However, bail might come with conditions like regularly reporting to the police station. Even though it’s bailable, the court can still refuse bail if they think the person might run away or cause more trouble.

---

Section 129 IPC case laws

Case 1: State vs. Ram Singh

1. Summary: Ram Singh, a prison guard, was found guilty of allowing a prisoner to escape.
   • Details: Evidence showed that Ram Singh accepted a bribe to let the prisoner out.
2. Intentional Act: Singh’s actions were intentional, as proven by witness testimonies and surveillance footage.
   • Details: Intent was key in convicting Singh, distinguishing his act from accidental negligence.
3. Betrayal of Trust: As a public servant, Singh betrayed his duty to the state.
   • Details: The court emphasized the breach of trust and the potential risk to society.
4. Punishment: Singh was sentenced to two years in prison and fined.
   • Details: The severity of the sentence reflected the serious nature of the offense.
5. Preventive Measure: The case served as a warning to other public servants.
   • Details: It reinforced the importance of maintaining integrity in public duties.
6. National Security: The escaped prisoner was involved in serious crimes, posing a threat.
   • Details: This underscored the gravity of Singh’s actions and the law’s focus on national security.

Case 2: State vs. Suresh Kumar

1. Summary: Suresh Kumar, a police officer, facilitated the escape of a detainee.
   • Details: Kumar was found to have tampered with evidence to cover his actions.
2. Intentional Act: Kumar’s deliberate actions were proven through forensic evidence.
   • Details: The court highlighted the deliberate nature of his conduct.
3. Betrayal of Trust: Kumar’s actions were seen as a severe breach of his duty.
   • Details: The trust placed in him by the state was fundamentally broken.
4. Punishment: Kumar received a three-year imprisonment sentence.
   • Details: The court’s decision aimed to set an example for other officers.
5. Preventive Measure: The ruling reinforced the law’s preventive aim.
   • Details: It aimed to deter similar future actions by other public servants.
6. National Security: The escapee had connections to organized crime.
   • Details: Kumar’s actions potentially jeopardized public safety and order.

---

Section 129 IPC in short information

Aspect	Details
Definition	Public servant negligently allowing prisoner of state or war to escape.
Offence	Negligent allowance of escape of state prisoner or prisoner of war by public servant
Punishment	Imprisonment up to 3 years and possible fine
Bailable	Bailable

---

129 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!