Any prison escape automatically means the guard broke this law.

The escape must result from the guard's own negligence in performing a legal duty to keep that specific person in custody — not from causes beyond the guard's control, like a structural jailbreak by armed outsiders.

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

Section 261

Escape from confinement or custody negligently suffered by public servant

Whoever, being a public servant legally bound as such public servant to keep in confinement any person charged with or convicted of any offence or lawfully committed to custody, negligently suffers such person to escape from confinement, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.§

Why this exists

This is the negligence counterpart to the previous section on intentional escape. Not every escape is a bribe or a conspiracy — sometimes it is a guard who falls asleep or fails to check a lock. The law still wants accountability for that carelessness, but it recognises the difference in culpability by prescribing a lighter punishment than for deliberate connivance. It continues the position under the old IPC Section 223.

Common misconceptions

Myth: Any prison escape automatically means the guard broke this law.
Fact: The escape must result from the guard's own negligence in performing a legal duty to keep that specific person in custody — not from causes beyond the guard's control, like a structural jailbreak by armed outsiders.