Section 304 BNSS: Officer in charge of prison to abstain from carrying out order in certain contingencies (Formerly Section 269 CrPC)

Section 304 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Officer in charge of prison to abstain from carrying out order in certain contingencies

Official Bare Act Text

Override / Mandate Mens Rea (Intent) Actus Reus (Conduct) Punishment Limitation Monetary

Where the person in respect of whom an order is made under section 302—

(a) is by reason of sickness or infirmity unfit to be removed from the prison; or

(b) is under committal for trial or under remand pending trial or pending a preliminary investigation; or

(c) is in custody for a period which would expire before the expiration of the time required for complying with the order and for taking him back to the prison in which he is confined or detained; or

(d) is a person to whom an order made by the State Government or the Central Government under section 303 applies, the officer in charge of the prison shall abstain from carrying out the Court's order and shall send to the Court a statement of reasons for so abstaining:

Provided that where the attendance of such person is required for giving evidence at a place not more than twenty-five kilometres distance from the prison, the officer in charge of the prison shall not so abstain for the reason mentioned in clause (b).

Statutory Defined Terms in this Section: (Click any term for official legal definition)

Inquiry Sec 2(1)(g) Investigation Sec 2(1)(h) Victim Sec 2(1)(w)

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 304

Section 304 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 269 of the CrPC, 1973) specifies the contingencies under which an officer in charge of a prison must abstain from carrying out a judicial production order.

Valid Contingencies for Abstention: Includes: certified sickness or infirmity rendering prisoner unfit for removal, prisoner under committal for trial or remand, custody duration expiring before production date, or operation of Section 303 notification.
Mandatory Duty to Report: The jail officer must immediately send a written statement of reasons to the Court explaining why the production order cannot be executed.
Court Oversight: The Court examines the jailer's report and determines whether to issue an adjourned date or order medical examination.

Key Landmark Precedents:

Rakesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, 1994 Cri LJ 2341: Held that jail authorities cannot use Section 269 CrPC as an arbitrary excuse to delay trials; medical certificates must be backed by official medical board reports.
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, (1978) 4 SCC 494: Reiterated that judicial oversight over jail superintendents is absolute and unjustified abstentions amount to contempt of court.

Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

If jail authorities persistently file medical abstention reports under Section 304, file an application demanding examination by an independent medical board and simultaneous video-conferencing production.