Section 506 IPC: BNS 351 and Criminal Threats

1. How section 506 connects to BNS section 351

Section 506 IPC prescribed punishment for criminal intimidation, while IPC section 503 defined the offence and section 507 addressed anonymous intimidation. The BNS brings these matters together in section 351. The definition is in BNS section 351(1) [IPC section 503], ordinary punishment in section 351(2) [IPC section 506, first part], aggravated punishment in section 351(3) [IPC section 506, second part], and anonymous-concealment punishment in section 351(4) [IPC section 507].

The BNS, BNSS and BSA commenced on 1 July 2024. Threats made before that date remain governed by the applicable old substantive law, including the IPC. A new complaint about an old threat does not automatically become a BNS prosecution. Pending proceedings may also retain the CrPC or Indian Evidence Act through savings provisions. Where threats continue across the commencement date, record each communication separately so the applicable law can be assessed accurately.

2. What makes a threat criminal intimidation

BNS section 351(1) [IPC section 503] addresses threats of injury to a person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of someone in whom that person is interested. The required intent is to cause alarm, or to make the recipient do something they are not legally bound to do, or omit something they are legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding execution of the threat.

The offence therefore involves more than identifying an unpleasant sentence. The court examines the threat, its context and the accused person’s intention. A demand backed by threatened violence may be very different from a heated insult with no relevant intent. Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka (2015) emphasised the importance of intention to cause alarm under the earlier law. That principle does not mean that every threat is harmless unless the recipient visibly panics.

Need help with this? Read our guide to /advocates.

3. Ordinary threats and their punishment

BNS section 351(2) [IPC section 506, first part] provides imprisonment of either description up to two years, or fine, or both, for criminal intimidation outside the aggravated category. The available punishment does not mean every conviction must result in the maximum term. Sentencing depends on the facts and applicable principles. Before reaching punishment, however, the prosecution must establish the offence; a disagreement, rude exchange or demand for repayment is not automatically criminal intimidation.

Threats can be spoken, written or communicated electronically, provided the necessary ingredients are proved. Keep the complete exchange rather than extracting one line that changes meaning when removed from context. The absence of a written message does not make a complaint impossible, and a screenshot does not automatically prove who sent it. Identity, authenticity, surrounding events and the intended coercive or alarming effect all require examination during investigation and, if the matter proceeds, at trial.

4. Aggravated and anonymous threats

BNS section 351(3) [IPC section 506, second part] provides imprisonment up to seven years, or fine, or both, for specified serious threats. These include threats of death, grievous hurt, destruction of property by fire, certain serious offences, or imputing unchastity to a woman. The exact statutory category matters. A complaint should reproduce the words as accurately as possible and explain the setting, rather than merely describing every frightening statement as a death threat.

BNS section 351(4) [IPC section 507] adds potential imprisonment up to two years where criminal intimidation occurs through anonymous communication or precautions are taken to conceal the sender’s name or abode. This is additional to the applicable punishment for intimidation. Anonymous delivery does not remove the need to establish criminal intimidation itself. Preserve envelope details, email headers, account addresses and platform identifiers, and let investigators determine identity rather than publicly accusing someone based only on suspicion.

5. Cognizable status and bail need careful checking

Under the central BNSS First Schedule, the section 351 entries are non-cognizable and bailable, including the aggravated-threat provision. This is an important point because a higher maximum punishment does not by itself make this scheduled BNS offence non-bailable. Non-cognizable generally means police need the appropriate Magistrate’s order to investigate and cannot arrest without warrant solely on that basis. Other offences in the same incident may create a different procedural position.

For older IPC cases, state amendments and notifications can materially affect the position, so a national summary of section 506 should not be applied blindly. For current cases, check any valid local change and the complete set of alleged offences. Bailable status ordinarily creates a right to bail on meeting lawful requirements; it does not cancel the accusation. Ask a lawyer to verify the applicable schedule rather than relying on an outdated internet table or informal police-station description.

6. Report immediate danger before debating sections

If a threat appears immediate, move to a safer location and contact emergency services or the police. Tell them about weapons, previous violence, access to your home, stalking, children at risk and any stated time or place. An online complaint alone may be inadequate for an urgent physical danger. Do not agree to meet the sender privately to test whether the threat is genuine, and do not retaliate with threats of your own.

For a non-cognizable report, BNSS section 174 [CrPC section 155] governs recording information and referral to the Magistrate, with investigation requiring the statutory order. If the facts also disclose a cognizable offence, explain those facts clearly rather than focusing only on the threat label. Multiple offences can change how police must proceed. Ask for a dated acknowledgement and keep a copy, whether the police register an FIR or record the matter through another lawful route.

7. Preserve messages, witnesses and context

Retain original messages, voice notes, emails and call records already available to you. Export complete conversations where the platform allows it, and note dates, account identifiers and whether messages later disappeared. Identify people who heard the threat or saw surrounding conduct. Do not edit audio, replace contact names to suggest an identity or manufacture a follow-up exchange. If you fear evidence will vanish, tell investigators promptly and ask about lawful preservation through the service provider.

BSA section 63 [Indian Evidence Act section 65B] addresses admissibility requirements for specified electronic records in proceedings governed by the relevant law. A lawyer can advise on certification and source material. At the reporting stage, preserve what you have rather than delaying until every technical issue is resolved. Do not hack an account, install spyware or obtain another person’s private data unlawfully; evidence gathering is not a general exemption from privacy and criminal-law obligations.

8. Distinguish intimidation from other disputes

A genuine statement that someone will pursue a lawful remedy is not automatically criminal intimidation. A creditor may demand payment and warn of lawful proceedings without committing this offence. The position changes where the communication threatens unlawful injury or uses the statutory coercive means. Courts examine substance rather than a polite or aggressive tone alone. Likewise, calling a communication a legal notice does not protect threats of violence, unlawful publication or other criminal conduct within it.

Threats tied to demands for money, sexual images, unwanted contact or domestic abuse may disclose additional offences and protective remedies. BNS sections 308 and 78 [IPC sections 383–389 and 354D, respectively] concern extortion and stalking in their relevant forms, but their ingredients must be assessed separately. An employer, partner or relative is not exempt from criminal law. Give the complete background without assuming that every relationship conflict is criminal or that a private relationship makes threats legally irrelevant.

9. Rights of an accused person and settlement limits

If accused, preserve the full conversation and obtain advice about the complaint, classification and attendance requirements. Do not contact the complainant to demand withdrawal, even if you believe your words were misunderstood. Respond to lawful notices and use counsel to place context and defence material before the proper authority. Bailable status does not excuse ignoring a summons or warrant. If additional non-bailable allegations appear, the bail strategy must address the entire case rather than section 351 alone.

Ordinary criminal intimidation under BNS section 351(2) [IPC section 506, first part] is covered by the statutory compounding framework under BNSS section 359 [CrPC section 320]. The aggravated and additional anonymous-threat provisions should not be assumed to have the same route. Compounding requires compliance with the law, not merely a private promise to stop attending court. Any settlement must be voluntary, and threats, payment pressure or interference with evidence can create further legal difficulties.

10. Build a practical safety and case plan

Keep a chronology containing the exact threat, how it arrived, earlier incidents, witnesses and the steps you took afterwards. Share it with a lawyer and a trusted person, while keeping sensitive identifiers private. Adjust passwords or account privacy where necessary and ask the police about immediate protective concerns. If the threat concerns intimate material, avoid circulating that material to multiple people as proof; explain its existence and ask for a secure way to provide it.

For someone accused, the best first response is a truthful account supported by preserved records, not deletion or a public counter-campaign. For a complainant, the best first response is accurate reporting and safety planning, not provocation to obtain stronger evidence. Both sides can ask the District Legal Services Authority about eligible assistance. No lawyer should guarantee conviction, dismissal or arrest from a single screenshot, because meaning, identity, intent and procedural law all require careful assessment.