The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 marked a major shift in India’s criminal law system by replacing the Indian Penal Code (IPC) . One of the standout additions in this legal reform is Section 304 BNS which criminalizes snatching as a standalone offense . This law defines snatching as the sudden or forceful seizure of property from a person’s possession—often executed in public spaces and seen as both violent and intrusive .

Earlier such acts were prosecuted under theft or robbery in the IPC, lacking specificity. But Section 304 BNS Act now closes this gap, offering clarity in definition, punishment, and trial procedures. As snatching crimes grow in urban areas, this section provides a timely, precise legal tool.

This article explains what is section 304, its legal structure, punishment, bail conditions, compoundability, and its position relative to 304 (2) BNS in IPC section, using real examples and key judgments. Explore other important Judiciary Notes.

Section 304 BNS: Snatching

 (1) Theft is snatching if, in order to commit theft, the offender suddenly or quickly or forcibly seizes or secures or grabs or takes away from any person or from his possession any movable property.
(2) Whoever commits snatching shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Note: "The information provided above has been sourced from the official website, i.e., Indian Code. While the content has been presented here for reference, no modifications have been made to the original laws and orders" 

Free Download PDF on Section 304 BNS

What is Section 304 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023? It deals with snatching, a distinct criminal offense defined as a sudden or forceful taking of someone’s movable property directly from their possession. This law elevates the seriousness of snatching by assigning it a dedicated section, separate from general theft.

Snatching, under Section 304 BNS, involves an act that is abrupt or executed with force. The offender intends to steal but does so by surprising or overpowering the victim. Unlike conventional theft that may happen stealthily, snatching directly involves the victim and typically occurs in public settings—like when someone grabs a person’s phone or jewelry and runs.

According to Section 304 BNS punishment guidelines in sub-section (2), the accused may be punished with imprisonment up to three years and may also be fined. This is laid out clearly in 304 (2) BNS punishment.

Example

If someone snatches a mobile phone from a person’s hand while walking on a busy street and flees, that act falls under Section 304 BNS. It is no longer treated just as theft but as a unique crime that involves fear and force.

For a crime to be punishable under Section 304 BNS, the following components must be present:

• Theft Intent – The offender must intend to take movable property dishonestly.
• Suddenness or Force – The act must involve suddenness or physical force.
• Direct Action on Person or Possession – The property must be taken from the person’s hand or immediate control.

The distinction lies in the method of execution. Theft can be secretive and unnoticed, but snatching is overt and aggressive. This is what makes the snatching section in BNS a focused and modern response to street crimes that leave victims shocked and vulnerable.

Additionally, unlike plain theft, snatching generates public fear and typically occurs in quick encounters, often involving vehicles or crowded public areas.

Section 304 BNS: Nature and Scope 

The nature of Section 304 BNS Act shows that the legislature recognized snatching as more than petty theft—it’s a breach of public peace. While it may not always cause bodily harm, it affects the sense of safety in society. The law, therefore, gives it standalone attention.

Section 304 BNS bailable or non bailable:

This offense is bailable, meaning the accused can seek bail as a matter of right.

304 BNS compoundable or not:

It is non-compoundable, so the victim cannot drop charges without judicial intervention. This ensures accountability.

Section 304 BNS triable by which court:

The offense is triable by a Magistrate of the First Class, allowing for quicker resolution compared to higher courts.

By clearly answering what in Section 304 BNS denotes, the law streamlines its application for both police officers and judges, ensuring that snatching isn’t diluted during legal interpretation.

Comparison with IPC Provisions

Under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), snatching was handled under general theft (Section 378) or robbery (Section 392), leading to ambiguity. The BNS simplifies this through Section 304 BNS 2023.

This table shows how 3042 BNS in the IPC section has been completely restructured to give legal identity and clarity to snatching cases.

Section 304 BNS: Judicial Interpretation 

Though Section 304 BNS is new, its interpretation draws on the understanding developed under IPC cases of similar nature. Courts now emphasize:

• The aggression or speed involved in committing the act.
• The victim’s testimony, as it directly relates to the force or suddenness.
• The intent—that the motive was theft but carried out aggressively.

Bail remains available as per section 304 BNS bailable or non bailable, but courts may deny it based on severity or repeat offenses. Since section 304 BNS triable by which court points to magistrates, speedy trials become feasible, enhancing deterrence.

Judges also differentiate between impulsive acts and planned attacks, considering whether the act involved significant intimidation or trauma.

Section 304 BNS: Landmark Cases 

While Section 304 BNS 2023 is newly introduced, several judgments under IPC remain relevant:

• State of Maharashtra v. Joseph Mingel Koli – Reinforced that sudden seizing even without weapons warrants separate treatment.
• Raju v. State of Karnataka (2007) – Court treated mobile-snatching as aggravated theft. This reflects how future courts might apply Section 304 BNS punishment.
• State v. Arif (2011) – Snatching of a chain on a bike led to conviction. The emphasis was on speed and aggression.
• Surender v. State (2020) – Court granted bail as no physical force was used. Highlights judicial discretion under bailable provision.
• Ravi v. State of UP (2023) – Snatching from a minor girl led to harsh punishment. Though under IPC, the rationale will influence BNS-era decisions.

Each of these helps courts decide under Section 304 BNS, especially in borderline cases involving theft versus snatching.

Section 304 BNS: Legal Impact 

The explicit creation of a snatching section in BNS has several positive outcomes:

• For victims: A sense of justice is better delivered when snatching is no longer treated as mere petty theft.
• For police: Clear guidelines mean faster FIR filing, charge-sheeting, and trial.
• For courts: Quick disposal through magistrate jurisdiction aids public confidence.

Bail remains an option (Section 304 BNS bailable or non bailable – bailable), but its non-compoundable nature ensures justice isn’t sidestepped through out-of-court settlements.

The inclusion of Section 304 BNS punishment in direct legal terms empowers both law enforcement and society to treat snatching as a severe public nuisance and a criminal violation—not just a petty annoyance.

Conclusion

Section 304 BNS of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, recognizes snatching as a unique criminal offense with serious societal implications. This standalone legal recognition simplifies prosecution, enhances legal clarity, and provides a framework that is just and timely.

Defined as a sudden or forceful seizure of property, snatching now has proper legal interpretation, punishment, and trial process. Whether its understanding 304 2 BNS punishment, determining if section 304 BNS is bailable or non bailable, or identifying which court it is triable by, the BNS provides structured answers.

Replacing vague IPC references like 304(2) BNS in the IPC section, the law now makes enforcement more efficient. Through detailed provisions and distinct categorization, Section 304 BNS Act reflects India’s evolving response to fast-paced urban crimes.

With this reform, both the legal system and citizens are better protected against this disruptive and growing offense.