SECTION 379 IPC - Indian Penal Code - Punishment for theft

Last Updated: 01 Jun, 2024
By Advocate Chikirsha Mohanty

Learn all about IPC Section 379, its penalties, court trial procedures, and recent Supreme Court rulings. Connect with experienced attorneys via LawRato for expert legal support.

Section 379 IPC states the punishment for theft and states that whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with a fine, or with both. Having a skilled lawyer representing you is crucial when facing accusations or building a case related to IPC Section 379. A lawyer can navigate legal complexities, ensure your rights are protected, and make a robust defense or representation, safeguarding your interests and helping achieve a favorable outcome in legal proceedings.

IPC 379 in Simple Words

In the Indian Penal Code, anyone who commits theft can be punished with imprisonment for up to three years, a fine, or both.

Connect with experienced lawyers who are specialized for dealing with IPC 379 legal cases

Cited by

LawRato 641+ Lawyers are online

Connect with a criminal lawyer in one minute

Offence : Theft

Punishment : 3 Years or Fine or Both

Cognizance : Cognizable

Bail : Non-Bailable

Triable : Any Magistrate


Know everything about theft from its punishment under IPC Section 379 and court trial procedure to the latest SC judgements. Find experienced attorneys through LawRato and obtain professional legal assistance in tackling your IPC 379 case.

Section 379, Indian Penal Code (“IPC”) prescribes punishment for the offence of theft. The offence of theft is defined under Section 378, IPC.

You can read more about IPC 378 - theft elaborated at LawRato guides.

In order to understand Section 379, IPC it is important that we first look at Section 378, IPC.

Section 378: Theft

Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft. For IPC 379 to be applicable, one must remember that the property shall be movable. Therefore, immovable property that cannot be detached from the earth is out of IPC 379 scope.

Explanation 1 — A thing so long as it is attached to the earth, not being movable property, is not the subject of theft; but it becomes capable of being the subject of theft as soon as it is severed from the earth.

Explanation 2 — A moving effected by the same act which effects the severance may be a theft.

Explanation 3 — A person is said to cause a thing to move by removing an obstacle which prevented it from moving or by separating it from any other thing, as well as by actually moving it.

Explanation 4 — A person, who by any means causes an animal to move, is said to move that animal, and to move everything which, in consequence of the motion so caused, is moved by that animal.

Explanation 5 — The consent mentioned in the definition may be express or implied, and may be given either by the person in possession, or by any person having for that purpose authority either express or implied.

Section 379: Punishment for theft

Whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

The crux of Section 379, IPC lies in our understanding of what constitutes ‘theft’ under Section 378, IPC.


Theft, as defined in Section 378, IPC is the dishonest removal of movable property out of the possession of any person without his consent. It is thus an offence against possession and not against ownership.

The essential ingredients that go into the making of an offence under Section 378, IPC are:

  1. That the accused must have a dishonest intention to take the property;

  2. That the property must be movable;

  3. That the property must be taken out of the possession of another person, resulting in wrongful gain to one and wrongful loss to another;

  4. That the property must be moved in order to such taking, i.e., obtaining property by deception;

  5. That the taking must be without that person’s consent (express or implied).

So as to understand Section 378, IPC better, let us imagine the following –

- X cuts down a tree on Y’s ground, with the intention of dishonestly taking the tree out of Y’s possession without Y’s consent. Here, as soon as X has severed the tree in order to such taking, he has committed theft.

- A deliberately guides B's bullock, which carries a box of treasure, in a specific direction, with the intention of dishonestly seizing the treasure belonging to B, the act of theft occurs as soon as the bullock initiates its movement. This sequence of events underscores A's culpability in the unlawful taking of B's property.

- A finds a ring belonging to B on a table in the house which B occupies. Here the ring is in B’s possession, and if A dishonestly removes it, A commits theft.

- A, in good faith, believing property belonging to B to be A’s own property, takes that property out of B’s possession. Here, as A does not take dishonestly, he does not commit theft.

- If A owes money to Z for repairing the watch, and if Z retains the watch lawfully as a security for the debt, and A takes the watch out of Z’s possession, with the intention of depriving Z of the property as a security for his debt, he commits theft, inasmuch as he takes it dishonestly.

- A, being on friendly terms with Z, goes into Z’s library in Z’s absence, and takes away a book without Z’s express consent for the purpose merely of reading it, and with the intention of returning it. Here, it is probable that A may have conceived that he had Z’s implied consent to use Z’s book. If this was A’s impression, A has not committed theft.

Connect with an expert lawyer for your legal issue

Dishonest Intention

Intention is the gist of the offence. The taking will not amount to theft unless the intention with which it is taken is dishonest. If it is not taken dishonestly, it will not amount to theft. It must be taken with the intention to cause wrongful gain to one person and wrongful loss to another. The gain or loss contemplated need not be a total acquisition or a total deprivation.

For example,
A, in good faith, believing property belonging to B to be his own property, takes that property out of B’s possession. Here, as A does not take dishonestly, as such he doesn’t commit theft.

The question of whether the accused had a dishonest intention is one of fact? Whether a claim is bona fide is mainly a question of fact and it is for the accused to that his claim is bona fide.

Movable property

Despite land being generally excluded from being moveable property under IPC 378, it was determined in the Krishna Reddy v. Munnippa Reddy case that land can be deemed as movable property if it can be detached from the earth. The accused was found guilty of stealing after deceitfully taking 100 carloads of earth from the complainant's farm. This landmark court decision shows that the concept of movable property goes beyond common understanding.

If you have any legal query related to IPC 378 and IPC 379 that appears to be puzzling, you can reach out to LawRato and obtain expert answers to your queries by using LawRato’s ask a free question option. You can get a verified advocate’s advice for your query within 48 hrs which enables you to make informed decisions regarding your IPC 379 legal matter.


The term possession must be distinguished from custody. A man is said to be in possession of a thing when he can deal with it as the owner to the exclusion of others. The property is in his custody when he cannot deal with it, as the owner, but merely keeps it for the sake of another, as in the case of a servant holding property for his master. To constitute theft, the property must be in possession of someone and then removed from his possession.

In fact, the offence of theft is an offence against possession and not against title of the property.

Moving of the property

Theft is complete the moment a thing is moved even though such thing may yet be far from passing into the thief’s possession.

For example,
A puts a bait for dogs in his pocket, and thus induces Z’s dog to follow it. Here, if A’s intention be dishonestly to take the dog out of Z’s possession without Z’s consent, A has committed theft as soon as Z’s dog has begun to follow A.

Moving a thing is the initial stage in the possession of that which is taken and theft is considered completed at such in initial stage; thus the actual taking or possession is not of much consequence in determining whether theft has been committed or not.

LawRato’s free legal advice from best-rated lawyers will provide you with expert insights into complex legal terminology as seen above.

You can also avail free legal advice by city, as this free legal advice in Bangalore and many other cities.

It is not necessary that the taking should be of a permanent character, or that the accused should have derived any profit.

For example,
A temporary removal of an office file from the office of a Chief Engineer and making it available to a private person for a day or two amounts to the offence of theft.

Consult: Top Criminal Lawyers in India

'Taking' Need not be Permanent

It is not necessary that the taking should be of a permanent character, or that the accused should have derived any profit.

For example,

A temporary removal of an office file from the office of a Chief Engineer and making it available to a private person for a day or two amounts to the offence of theft.

Taking with Dishonest Intention

Taking out of possession being the essential ingredient of the offence of theft, one of the ingredients of the offence of theft is intention to take dishonestly. This intention is known as animo furandi (with intent to steal). Without it the offence of theft is not completed. A bona fide claim of right will rebut the presumption of dishonesty. A person may commit theft by dishonestly taking his own property out of possession of another.

For example,
If A, having pawned his watch to Z, takes it out of Z’s possession without Z’s consent, not having paid what he borrowed on the watch, he commits theft, though the watch is his own property inasmuch as he takes it dishonestly.

Without Consent

Theft is committed when property is unlawfully taken from another individual without their consent, coupled with an intention to deceive or defraud. Even a temporary act of withholding or deprivation signifies the commission of this offense. Crucially, the property must be removed from its possessor without their express or implied agreement, as consent obtained through coercion or force holds no legal validity.


Section 379, IPC is the penal provision for the offence of ‘theft’ that has been defined under Section 378, IPC. The punishment for theft under this Section is imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

The minimum punishment for the offence of theft is only fine.

The maximum punishment for the offence of theft is imprisonment for three years and fine.

Connect with an expert lawyer for your legal issue


There can be found three aggravated versions of the offence of ‘theft’ under the Indian Penal Code.
There are three penal provisions in the IPC which comprise the aggravated version of the simple offence of ‘theft’ under Section 379, IPC i.e., these are some offensive, penal situations which borrow their fundamental criminality from Section 379, IPC and build upon its intensity.

In other words, the base, essential crime is that of ‘theft’ (under Section 379, IPC) which is made further worse by the attendant circumstances that are captured under its aggravated versions, which are:

  • 380, IPC – Theft in dwelling house, etc.

Whoever commits theft in any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or used for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

  • 381, IPC – Theft by clerk or servant of property in possession of master.

Whoever, being a clerk or servant, or being employed in the capacity of a clerk or servant, commits theft in respect of any property in the possession of his master or employer, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

  • 382, IPC – Theft after preparation made for causing death, hurt or restraint in order to the committing of the theft.

Whoever commits theft, having made preparation for causing death, or hurt, or restraint, or fear of death, or of hurt, or of restraint, to any person, in order to the committing of such theft, or in order to the effecting of his escape after the committing of such theft, or in order to the retaining of property taken by such theft, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

LawRato’s extensive law guides throw light on 500+ sections of the Indian Penal Code, of 1860. You can dive into insights related to IPC 380, IPC 381, IPC 382 and more by visiting LawRato’s extensive law guides. Visit LawRato and gain valuable legal knowledge which lets you navigate better through the intricate legal framework and legal phrasings.


Some of the famous and most important judgements on Section 379, IPC are as follows:

1. K.N. Mehra v. State of Rajasthan –

In this case the Court held that the offence of theft is committed if the property of another person is taken away from him without his consent (express or implied) with a dishonest intention. Even a temporary retention or deprivation is enough to show that the offence has been committed.

2. Sat Narain –

In this case it was held by the Court that under Hindu Law, husband and wife can be liable for theft against each other. In this case the husband was liable for theft, when he took away the stridhan of his wife, which was her exclusive property. The Court held that if the exclusive property of one is taken away or misappropriated and marriage breaks down, the other will be liable for theft. There is no presumption that husband and wife are one for the purpose of criminal law.

3. Mahadev Vishwanath Parulekar v. L.P. Lobo –

In this case the Court held that when a partner in business did not know that he was endorsing a cheque and believed that he was merely signing a piece of paper which he gave to the accused, even though the property for which the cheque was endorsed did not pass to the accused by reason of endorsement, but remained with the complainant, the accused was held guilty of dishonestly appropriating property. it cannot be laid down as a general principle of law that a partner can in no circumstances commit theft of the partnership property.

4. Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab –

In this case the Court held that the theft of electricity is not theft of moveable property within Section 379, IPC. However, it is punishable under section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 as theft of energy up to 3 years of imprisonment or fine up to Rs. 5,000 with a minimum of Rs. 500 or with both.

5. Chandi Kumar Das Karmakar v. Abanidar Roy –

In this case the appellants were charged with committing the theft of fish by fishing in a tank called ‘Nutan Puker’ in the possession of the complainant. The appellants were shown as tenants in the records with their interest described as “settled raiyat mukurat”, while the complainant claimed to be in possession of the tank as a result of (bhag) partition. The Court held that the appellants were not guilty. The appellant had bona fide claim, though weak, over the property.

The very recent court judgements related to IPC 378 and IPC 379 evidently state that the following actions committed by the offender shall be considered theft under IPC Section 378 and thereby shall be liable for punishment under IPC Section 379. The actions amounting to theft include

  1. Quarrying outside permissible limits by the offender can warrant police investigation for theft under IPC 378

  2. Illegal mines and minerals extraction either in contravention of permit conditions or in the absence of mandatory permit is counted as theft and shall be punishable under IPC 379

Consult: Top Criminal Lawyers in India


In India, the mechanism for criminal justice delivery assumes shape of a criminal trial which is governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’).

The trial under Section 379, IPC takes a journey similar to the trials conducted for other criminal offences. Broadly, the procedure for a trial takes the steps - as have been enumerated below, beginning from the filing of an FIR to the final verdict by the court:

1. Investigation - FIR, Arrest, Remand and Bail under Section 379, IPC

i. First Information Report (FIR) - Criminal procedure is set into motion with the filing of an FIR or First Information Report under Section 379, IPC by the victim or an aggrieved person. This marks the beginning of investigation by police into the case of cheating under that Section.

ii. Arrest - FIR is soon followed by the arrest of the accused person (person who has allegedly committed the offence) by the police and his subsequent production before the Magistrate. Such production must be made within 24 hours of the arrest of the accused person.

iii. Remand/ Custody - At the time of such production if the investigating officer believes that the investigation under Section 379, IPC cannot be completed within 24 hours i.e., the police need more time with the accused for the purpose of interrogation etc., the officer will file an application before the same Magistrate seeking an extension in custody of the accused. Now, depending on the discretion of the Magistrate, such detention may be authorised in police custody i.e., a lock-up or in judicial custody i.e., jail.

However, it is to be noted that a Magistrate cannot authorise detention of an accused in police custody for a period exceeding the initial 15 days (from the date of the production of the accused before the Magistrate).

On the other hand, a Magistrate under Section 167 (2)(a), CrPC may authorize the detention of the accused in judicial custody beyond the period of initial 15 (fifteen) days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so. However, no magistrate shall authorize custody for more than -

- Ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offense punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term not less than ten years;

- Sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offense.

iv. Bail - If upon the expiry of sixty or ninety days, as the case may be, the police is unable to complete the investigation and file a chargesheet (under Section 379, IPC) with the Magistrate, the accused is entitled to default bail i.e., such bail is compulsorily granted to the accused provided he applies for and furnishes bail.

However, during the sixty- or ninety-day period, as the case may be, while the accused is still under custody of the police or otherwise for the offence under Section 379, IPC, he may keep pushing for the grant of regular bail under Section 437 or 439, CrPC by the Magistrate or the High Court/ Sessions Court, respectively.

Since IPC 379 is a non-bailable offence, it is recommended that the accused approach an anticipatory bail lawyer and obtain anticipatory bail even before arrest. You can discover vetted anticipatory bail lawyers through LawRato. We at LawRato can connect you with your selected lawyer within minutes once you filled out the Talk to a Lawyer form. Directly discuss your IPC 379 matter with your lawyer whether you are a complainant or accused charged under this section by visiting LawRato.

2. Filing of Final Report by the Police

The police after completing the investigation under Section 379, IPC would have to file a final report under Section 173, CrPC. This marks the conclusion of the investigation which is aimed at collecting evidence surrounding the commission of the offence under that Section.

The final report may take one of the following forms:

a. Closure Report

b. Charge Sheet

Closure Report

If the evidence collected against the accused is found to be deficit i.e., there is not enough evidence to support prosecution of the accused under Section 379, IPC, before a Court of law justifying his further detention in the custody, then the police will file a closure report under Section 169, CrPC and release the accused on his executing a bond/ signing an undertaking for his appearance, if and when so required, before a Court or Magistrate.

In other words, a closure report is filed when the police have little or no evidence in support of the fact that the offense under Section 379, IPC has been committed by the accused under custody.

The police officer is bound to notify the informant (who gets an FIR lodged) the fact that a final report relating to his case under Section 379, IPC has been submitted to the Magistrate.

Upon presentation of the closure report to the Magistrate, he is open to proceed with any of the following four options:

1) He may accept the closure report and refuse to take cognizance of the offence. The result in that case will be that the case would not proceed further.

2) He may reject the closure report and instead take cognizance of the offence under Section 190, CrPC.

The result in that case will be that the case would proceed to the next stage.

3) Without rejecting the closure report he may direct the investigating agency to conduct further investigation into the matter, if he thinks that there is some lacunae or gap that needs filling-up.

4) If an informant challenges such closure report by filing a protest petition, the Magistrate or Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon the same following which he may take or refuse to take cognizance of the offence.

If the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence under Section 190, CrPC he would issue summons to the accused, under Section 204, CrPC thereby directing his appearance before himself.

Charge Sheet

The police will prepare a charge sheet according to Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code if there is sufficient evidence to prosecute the accused under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) (CrPC). The charge sheet contains information about the parties, the offence, the witness statements that were recorded per Section 161 of the CrPC, and whether or not it appears that a crime was committed and, if so, by whom. It also includes a list of any items seized or documentary evidence, as well as whether the accused has been released on bond or arrested and placed under custody under Section 170 of the CrPC. The Magistrate issues a warrant for the accused's appearance in court on a certain date after receiving the charge sheet.

The Magistrate has two options during the hearing: file charges under Section 379 of the IPC and move forward with the trial, or release the accused and end the case.

Connect with an expert lawyer for your legal issu

3. Plea of Guilty or Not Guilty by the Accused

After the charges have been formally framed under Section 379, IPC, they will be read over and explained to the accused by the Magistrate/ Court. Thereafter, the accused would be asked whether he pleads guilty to such charge of cheating or not.

If the accused pleads guilty, the Magistrate shall record such plea and may convict him for the offence of cheating under Section 379, IPC. However, it is to be noted that the responsibility lies with the Magistrate to ensure that the plea of guilt is made voluntarily by the accused and that is why he reserves the discretion with himself to convict the accused on such plea.

If the accused doesn’t plead guilty i.e., if he claims trial, the Magistrate shall post the case for trial.

4. Evidence for Prosecution

On the day fixed for the prosecution evidence, the Magistrate/ Court invites the prosecution to lead evidence and prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution may establish the guilt with the help of either oral or documentary evidence.

The prosecution witnesses are summoned and examined and are asked to produce any document or thing in support of their version of events.

These witnesses may be subject to cross-examination if the defence counsel so desires.

5. Statement of the Accused

After the prosecution concludes its evidence, the same is put to the accused i.e., he is given an opportunity/ chance to explain the circumstances appearing in evidence against him and to say in his defence what he wants to, in his own words. This mandate is captured under Section 313, CrPC. The purpose of such statement is to establish a direct dialogue between the Court and the accused so as to enable him to explain the incriminating material.

This statement is not taken on oath and anything recorded as part of it can be used against the accused at a later stage.

6. Evidence for Defence

After recording the statement of the accused, the Court invites the defence to present evidence, if any. The accused, however is not mandatorily required to enter upon his defence as the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove the charge against him beyond reasonable doubt.

If the accused has any evidence (oral or documentary), it is presented before the Court at this stage. This is an opportunity for him to punch holes in the prosecution story for which it can call upon and examine witnesses or request production of a document or a thing.

7. Final Arguments

As per Section 314, CrPC, after the close of the evidence both parties take turns - first, the prosecution and then the defence - to make final oral arguments in front of the Magistrate or Court. Final arguments are presented by the Public Prosecutor and the Defence counsel.

8. Judgment

After examining the facts and circumstances of the case, analysing the evidence produced by both the parties in support of their versions and hearing the arguments advanced by each of them, the Magistrate/ Court decides, based on strong reasons, whether to convict or acquit the accused. This is known as ‘pronouncing a judgment’.

If the accused is pronounced ‘guilty’ upon trial, he is convicted of the charge under Section 379, IPC and if pronounced ‘not-guilty’, he is acquitted of the charge under Section 379, IPC. The above is recorded in a judgement.

If the accused is convicted, then both sides are heard on quantum of sentence i.e., what punishment should he be given. This is usually done if the punishment prescribed is that of life imprisonment or death.

After hearing the arguments on the sentence, the court finally decides what punishment should the accused be sentenced to. Various theories of punishment are considered like the reformative theory and the deterrent theory of punishment etc. Also, considerations like age, background, and history of the accused are given due weightage before arriving at a decision on the punishment.

Consult: Top Criminal Lawyers in India


The fundamental principles of appeal under CrPC are as follows:

  • An appeal is a creation of statute.

  • There is no inherent right to file an appeal.

  • There is no appeal only against conviction.

  • There is no appeal in petty cases.

  • Generally, there is no appeal on conviction on a plea of guilt.

It is important to note that, apart from the procedure set out in the CrPC or other applicable laws, a criminal court’s decision or order cannot be appealed against. Therefore, there is no inherent right to appeal, and even the first appeal is subject to statutory limitations. The justification behind this principle is that the courts that preside over a case are assumed to be capable and qualified to ensure that the trial is carried out impartially. However, as per the Section 372, CrPC the victim has a right to appeal against any order passed by the Court under special circumstances comprising of a judgment of acquittal, conviction for lesser offence or inadequate compensation.

Generally, same sets of rules and procedures are employed to govern the appeals in the Courts of Session and High Courts (highest court of appeal in a State and enjoys more powers in matters where appeal is allowed). The highest court of appeal in the country is the Supreme Court and hence, it enjoys wide discretionary and plenary powers in the cases of appeals. Its powers are largely governed by the provisions laid down in CrPC, Indian Constitution, and the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970.

The law provides a person who has been convicted of a crime to appeal to the Supreme Court or the High Court or the Sessions Court as per the circumstances.

The accused has been given the right to appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment of the High Court if the High Court has reversed an order of his acquittal on appeal by convicting him, thereby, sentencing him to imprisonment for life or for ten years or more, or to death.

A similar right to appeal has been granted to one or all accused persons if more than one person has been convicted in a trial and such order has been passed by the court.

However, there are certain circumstances under which no appeal would lie. These provisions have been laid down under Section 265G, Section 375 and Section 376 of the CrPC.

Hiring an expert attorney who can best represent you in IPC 379 legal matter is the ideal move considering the multi-step court trials under IPC 379 followed by the appeal process in case of a non-satisfactory court judgment as per the accused. Choose the experienced lawyers and best criminal advocates backed by a proven track record in the legal field using LawRato, your trusted legal partner and increase favourable outcomes to your legal case.


Yes, since the offence of ‘theft’ under Section 379, IPC is a cognizable offence, a police officer can arrest a person suspected to have committed such offence without warrant from the Court (a warrant is a Court-order authorising a police officer to carry out an arrest).


No, the offence under Section 379, IPC is not bailable.


The severity of the offence under Section 379, IPC is so much that it has been characterized as a non-bailable offence.

In order to get bail in such cases, an accused would require very strong reasons.

Depending on the stage of the case, the accused can either apply for a regular bail after he has been arrested or can ideally apply for an anticipatory bail before the arrest is made. The court will consider various essentials such as antecedents of the accused, his status in the society, the motive for the offence, police charge sheet, etc. After considering all the essentials if the reasons favour accused bail will be granted.

For cases like IPC 379 and similar offenses, obtaining assistance from experienced attorneys is vital. Depending on the severity of the accusation, you can avoid arrest and avoid going to jail immediately by applying for anticipatory bail now. This gives you ample time to address your legal situation effectively.

With the help of Lawrato, you can find and hire qualified anticipatory bail lawyers near your city with 10-plus years of legal experience.


1. In order to apply for regular bail when one is wrongfully accused under Section 379 IPC, the alleged accused will have to submit an application for bail in the court of Area Magistrate.

2. The court will then send the summons out to the other party and will fix a date for the hearing.

3. On the date of hearing, the court will hear arguments from both sides and would give a decision based on the facts and circumstances of the case.


1. In case the accused has an apprehension of an arrest under Section 379, IPC, he or she can also file an application for anticipatory bail with the help of a criminal lawyer.

2. The lawyer will file the anticipatory bail application in the requisite court having the authority to adjudge the particular criminal matter along with a vakalatnama.

3. The court will then notify a public prosecutor about the anticipatory bail application and would ask him to file objections, if any.

4. Thereafter, the court will appoint a date of hearing and after hearing the final arguments of both the parties would give a judgment based on the facts and circumstances of the case.

You can read more about anticipatory bail including factors affecting it, procedure, and criteria for obtaining anticipatory bail on the LawRato anticipatory bail service page.


As per Section 320, CrPC the offence under Section 379, IPC is compoundable i.e., law allows for a compromise to be recorded between the victim (owner of the property stolen) and the offender.

Connect with an expert lawyer for your legal issue


1. “I am a fine arts student at Delhi University. My classmate Madhu had always been over-friendly with me from day one. However, I didn’t feel the same towards her. I have separate set of friends whom I hang out with. One day when I was at the studio working on my portfolio, she picked some of my work prints and put them in her bag. She insisted that I must come to her house if I want them back. I was shocked at her behaviour. I called her many times after that incident but she continued to invite me over. I finally consulted a lawyer through Lawrato and discussed my problem with her. I was able to understand that what she did was theft which is punishable under Indian penal code. I have filed an FIR against Madhu in the nearest police thana with the help of my lawyer.”

- Prerna Ohri

2. “I live with my husband and mother-in-law in Parmanand Colony, Delhi. Last November my husband had gone on a company tour to Mysore. One day I was out for shopping with my mother-in-law when on returning home, we found that someone had broken in and stolen some cash and gold ornaments from the almirah. My mother-in-law was uncontrollably in tears. I panicked thinking how unsafe we both were. I had to do something ASAP. I looked up online for legal help. I came across Lawrato and booked a lawyer immediately. That evening itself we filed an FIR. My lawyer also helped me check the CCTV camera and talk to the neighbours. The CCTV footage revealed that our new gardener who didn’t know about the cameras had stolen the items from our home. Before the police could find the thief, we did. Thanks to my lawyer for his prompt availability and advice. The gardener has been arrested and the objects have been recovered. My husband was proud of me.”

- Mrs. Alpa Midha


Being charged with an offence, whether major or minor, is a serious matter.

Someone who is accused of a crime faces the possibility of severe penalties such as being incarcerated or having to pay significant fines. In addition, they may also experience adverse social outcomes, such as being stigmatized by having a criminal record associated with their name. This can result in a damaged reputation that can impact both their personal and professional life. Furthermore, they may have to endure costly, protracted, and emotionally taxing legal proceedings. While some legal matters can be handled alone, a criminal arrest of any nature warrants legal advice of an expert criminal lawyer who can guide you about your rights and secure the best possible outcome for your case.

If you’re facing criminal prosecution, a criminal lawyer can help you understand:

  • The nature of the charges filed;

  • Your rights before and after an arrest;

  • Any defences that may be available;

  • What plea bargains are likely to be offered; and

  • What is expected after trial or conviction.

One should ideally prepare a timeline of events and take it down on a piece of paper so that it is easier to brief the lawyer about the case. This will also help the lawyer to formulate a strategy to successfully conduct the trial and convince the court to adjudge in your favour.

Additionally, it is crucial to have a comprehensive understanding of the relevant laws regarding the case. It is advisable to have a discussion with the lawyer and obtain an understanding of the legal process and the applicable regulations. It is equally important to conduct your own investigation and comprehend the potential risks involved, as well as how to mitigate them.

Hence, having by your side a criminal lawyer can prove to be of immense help when charged with an offence as under section 379, IPC.

We at LawRato are proven experts at providing a vast network of top-rated criminal lawyers and anticipatory bail advocates who are ready to help you with your IPC 379 case. By using LawRato you can choose top-rated attorneys from over 10,000 lawyers practicing across 700 cities in India.Experience a smooth legal journey with LawRato like never before.

Start by filling in your details through talk to a lawyer service and be assured to be connected to the best-matched lawyer within minutes.

Description. Theft is punishable by imprisonment for up to three years or fines.

Find the best lawyer for IPC Section 379 charges

Comments by Users

No Comments! Be the first one to comment.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Section 379 IPC bailable?

The nature of section 379 IPC includes non-bailable and cognizable offenses, as well as non-compoundable and triable by a Magistrate.

What are the cases of Section 379?

State Of Nct Of Delhi vs Sanjay on 4 September, 2014. ... G.Reddeiah vs Govt.Of A.P.& Anr, 9 September 2011. ... Chandi Kumar Das Karmarkar And ... ... Om Prakash & Ors vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr, 26 September 2012. ... Jayant vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh, 3 December 2020.

What is the IPC 397?

The punishment for a robbery, dacoity or attempted robbery that uses a deadly weapon or inflicts grievous harm on a person is not less than seven-years of imprisonment.