Quick Answer
BNS Section 304 introduces an entirely new offence of snatching that had no dedicated equivalent under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Snatching is defined as theft committed by suddenly, quickly, or forcibly seizing or securing or grabbing or taking away movable property from any person or from their possession. The offence is punishable with imprisonment of either description for up to three years, plus fine. Under the IPC, snatching incidents were prosecuted under a combination of Section 379 (theft, punishable with up to three years), Section 356 (assault or criminal force in attempt to commit theft of property carried by a person, punishable with up to two years), or in more serious cases under Section 392 (robbery). The BNS now provides a specific, intermediate offence that sits between simple theft and robbery, addressing a gap that courts and police had long identified.
What changed
| Old law (IPC) | New law (BNS) | |
|---|---|---|
| Dedicated snatching offence | None | Section 304 |
| How snatching was prosecuted | S. 379 (theft) + S. 356 (assault to commit theft) or S. 392 (robbery) | S. 304 (standalone snatching offence) |
| Definition | No statutory definition | Theft committed by suddenly/quickly/forcibly seizing movable property from a person |
| Maximum punishment | Varied: S. 379 (3 years), S. 356 (2 years), S. 392 (10 years) | Up to 3 years + fine |
| Cognisability | Depended on section applied | Cognisable |
| Bail status | Depended on section applied | Non-bailable |
| Change type | New provision — no IPC equivalent |
Full statutory text
IPC — No equivalent provision
Under the IPC, no section specifically addressed snatching. The following provisions were commonly invoked:
Section 379 IPC — 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.
Section 356 IPC — Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person, in attempting to commit theft of any property which that person is then wearing or carrying, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 304 BNS
(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 moveable 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.
Key differences
New standalone offence: This is the most significant change. Snatching is now a separately defined and separately punishable offence, eliminating the need for prosecutors to construct a charge by combining multiple IPC sections. Sub-section (1) provides a clear statutory definition, and sub-section (2) prescribes the punishment.
Definition fills a long-standing gap: The IPC drew a sharp line between theft (involving no force) and robbery (involving force or fear of force). Snatching — which typically involves a sudden, quick taking with minimal but real physical force (such as yanking a chain from someone's neck or grabbing a phone from their hand) — fell awkwardly between the two categories. Some courts treated it as theft, others as robbery, and still others required the combination of theft and assault. BNS 304 resolves this classification problem.
Mandatory fine: Under BNS 304(2), fine is mandatory alongside imprisonment ("and shall also be liable to fine"). Under IPC 379, fine was an alternative to imprisonment ("or with fine, or with both"). This ensures that every snatching conviction carries a financial penalty component.
Punishment calibrated as intermediate offence: The three-year maximum positions snatching between simple theft under BNS 303 (which carries the same three-year maximum but with discretionary fine) and robbery under BNS 310 (which carries a minimum of three years and maximum of ten years for non-aggravated robbery). The mandatory fine distinguishes snatching from simple theft in terms of sentencing severity.
Cognisable and non-bailable: BNS 304 is classified as a cognisable offence (police can arrest without warrant) and non-bailable. Under the IPC framework, simple theft under Section 379 was cognisable but bailable, while robbery was cognisable and non-bailable. The non-bailable classification of snatching reflects the legislature's view that sudden forcible taking from a person warrants a stricter procedural regime than ordinary theft.
Elements of the offence: To secure conviction under BNS 304, the prosecution must establish: (a) the accused committed theft as defined under BNS 303, (b) the theft was committed by suddenly, quickly, or forcibly seizing the property, (c) the property was seized from a person or from their possession, and (d) the property seized was movable property. The adverbs "suddenly," "quickly," and "forcibly" are disjunctive — any one suffices.
What this means for practitioners
For police and prosecutors: BNS 304 provides a clear, specific section to register FIRs for snatching incidents. Previously, first information reports for chain-snatching or phone-snatching varied across police stations — some registered under Section 379 (theft), others under Section 356 read with Section 379, and others under Section 392 (robbery). The dedicated provision eliminates this inconsistency. Charge sheets should cite BNS 304 for all snatching incidents occurring on or after 1 July 2024.
For defence counsel: The creation of a dedicated snatching offence may actually benefit some accused persons who were previously charged with robbery (Section 392 IPC, punishable with up to ten years) for what was essentially a snatching incident. Under the BNS framework, genuine snatching cases should attract BNS 304 (maximum three years) rather than robbery charges (BNS 310, minimum three years and maximum ten years). Defence counsel should argue for the application of BNS 304 where the facts support snatching rather than robbery.
For pending cases: Snatching incidents that occurred before 1 July 2024 continue to be prosecuted under the applicable IPC provisions (Section 379, 356, or 392 as the case may be). There is no retrospective application of BNS 304. However, in cases where an accused was charged with robbery under Section 392 IPC for conduct that would now be classified as snatching under BNS 304, defence counsel may argue that the legislative recognition of snatching as a lesser offence supports a more lenient interpretation of the IPC charge.
The snatching-robbery boundary: The critical practical question will be where snatching under BNS 304 ends and robbery under BNS 309-310 begins. Snatching involves sudden or forcible seizure of property — but robbery under BNS 309 requires either (a) the use of force or show of force to cause fear of instant death, hurt, or wrongful restraint, or (b) the putting of any person in fear of such consequences. Where the snatching involves violence beyond the act of seizing — such as knocking the victim down, causing injury, or brandishing a weapon — it will likely escalate to robbery.
Does old case law still apply?
Since BNS 304 is a new provision, there is no direct case law interpreting it. However, courts are likely to draw upon existing jurisprudence on theft and robbery to interpret the boundaries of the new offence.
Existing principles that will inform interpretation:
The Supreme Court's distinction between theft and robbery — particularly the degree of force or fear required to elevate theft to robbery — provides the upper boundary of snatching. Cases where courts held that mere snatching without causing fear of injury or restraint did not constitute robbery will now fall squarely within BNS 304.
Several High Courts had previously observed the absence of a dedicated snatching provision. The Delhi High Court and Bombay High Court, in particular, had noted in multiple orders that chain-snatching cases posed classification difficulties under the IPC framework. BNS 304 legislatively addresses these judicial observations.
No old cases require reconsideration, as this is a new offence. However, robbery convictions under IPC 392 for conduct that would now be classified as snatching may be cited by appellants seeking sentence reduction, arguing that the legislative intent of the BNS is to treat snatching as a distinct and lesser category.
Frequently asked questions
Did snatching have a separate offence under the IPC? No. The IPC had no dedicated snatching provision. Snatching was typically prosecuted under Section 379 (theft), Section 356 (assault to commit theft of property carried by a person), or Section 392 (robbery), depending on the facts and the police station's practice. BNS 304 creates the first standalone snatching offence in Indian criminal law.
What is the punishment for snatching under BNS? Under BNS Section 304(2), snatching is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, plus mandatory fine. The offence is cognisable and non-bailable.
What is the difference between snatching and robbery? Snatching under BNS 304 involves suddenly, quickly, or forcibly seizing movable property from a person. Robbery under BNS 309-310 requires the additional element of force or show of force causing fear of instant death, hurt, or wrongful restraint. Snatching is the act of sudden seizure; robbery involves violence or intimidation beyond the act of taking.
Which section applies to snatching incidents before 1 July 2024? Snatching incidents before 1 July 2024 continue to be prosecuted under the applicable IPC provisions — typically Section 379 (theft) read with Section 356 (assault to commit theft of carried property), or Section 392 (robbery) for more violent cases. BNS 304 applies only to incidents on or after 1 July 2024.