Robbery and Theft Laws in Nepal (2026): Penal Code 2074 Guide

Theft, burglary, robbery and dacoity sit on a single offence ladder in the National Penal Code 2074 (2017). The same underlying concept — taking property that does not belong to you — is graduated by the method of taking (silent vs forceful), the place of taking (street vs dwelling), the number of offenders (individual vs gang), and the type of property (ordinary vs public, religious or government). The ladder runs from ordinary theft under Section 241, with up to three years' imprisonment, through aggravated theft (Sec. 242), burglary or nakabajani (Sec. 243), to robbery (Sec. 244 onwards) carrying seven to fourteen years' imprisonment and a fine up to NPR 140,000, with dacoity at the top of the ladder for organised gang robbery.

This 2026 (2083 BS) guide explains how robbery, theft and dacoity law operates in Nepal — the statutory definitions; the elements that distinguish each offence from the next; the aggravators that escalate sentences (night-time, dwelling, by servant or employee, against vulnerable victims, public or religious property); the punishment bands; receiving stolen property as a separate offence; restitution to the victim; the compoundability rules (minor theft may be compounded, robbery and dacoity cannot); investigation through Nepal Police and the District Court prosecution route; bail practice for the different offences; and the 35-day appeal limitation to the High Court.

Alpine Law Associates — Nepal Bar Council-registered criminal defence and victim-counsel team handling theft, burglary, robbery and dacoity matters at District Court, High Court and Supreme Court.

Speak with our lawyers today →

What is theft under the Penal Code 2074?

Section 241 of the National Penal Code 2074 creates the base theft offence. The elements are: (a) taking another person's movable property; (b) without the owner's consent; (c) without using force or threat of force; and (d) with dishonest intent — the intent to own, use, enjoy or dispose of the property as one's own and to permanently deprive the owner. The actus reus is the taking; the mens rea is the dishonest intent at the moment of taking. Where the intent was honest at the time (the accused believed in good faith that the property was their own or that they had a right to take it), the offence is not made out even if the property in fact belonged to another.

The punishment for ordinary theft is imprisonment up to three years and a fine up to NPR 30,000, or both. The District Court has discretion within the band based on the value of the property, the circumstances of the taking, the prior record of the accused and the cooperation of the accused with the investigation. For first-time offenders in lower-value cases with restitution to the victim, the court may impose only a fine without custodial sentence; for organised or repeat theft, the upper band of three years is more typical. The full sentencing framework operates under our sentencing factors guide.

How does aggravated theft escalate the punishment?

Aggravated theft under Section 242 of the Penal Code 2074 covers theft of property with a special character: government property, public property (publicly-owned items like park benches, public-utility infrastructure, street furniture), religious objects (idols, ritual implements, temple bells), and temple property. The penalty escalates to imprisonment from two to seven years, reflecting the additional public-interest element. The aggravation captures the broader harm — theft of government property undermines the public treasury and public services; theft of religious property offends community sentiment and disrupts religious observance; theft of public utility damages services for everyone, not just one private owner.

Theft at night and theft from a place of business are also typically treated within the aggravated band depending on the facts. Night-time aggravation reflects the planning element typical in nocturnal theft and the reduced opportunity for victim protection. Theft from a place of business — shop, godown, factory, office — aggravates because the business is the owner's livelihood and the theft can disrupt employment and economic activity beyond the individual property loss. The court considers all the aggravators together when fixing the sentence within the two-to-seven-year band.

What is burglary (nakabajani) under Section 243?

Burglary or nakabajani under Section 243 of the Penal Code 2074 is theft committed by breaking into a building. The elements are: the base theft elements (Sec. 241), plus the additional element of unlawful entry by breaking, climbing, opening locks, or otherwise overcoming a physical barrier protecting the building. The classic burglary is the night-time break-in to a dwelling house, but the section reaches any building — shop, godown, office, factory — where physical security has been breached to gain entry. The "breaking" element does not require destruction; opening an unlocked door with intent to commit theft, climbing through an open window, or entering a building by a means not intended for entry all qualify.

The penalty is three to five years' imprisonment. The aggravation reflects the breach of the victim's protected space and the planning element typical in burglary — it is not a spur-of-the-moment opportunistic taking but a calculated entry. The Section 243 charge runs in parallel with any Sec. 241 theft charge for the property taken; the court sentences on the aggregate or selects the higher penalty. Where the burglary is also committed at night, against a dwelling, or by an organised group, the upper band of the burglary range applies, with the court considering all aggravators when fixing the sentence.

What distinguishes robbery from theft?

Robbery under Section 244 of the Penal Code 2074 is theft accompanied by force, threat of force, or creation of fear of injury or death during the act of taking. The defining element is the violence or the threat. Where the accused puts a weapon to the victim's head and demands the wallet, that is robbery — the same act of taking the wallet would have been theft if it had been done silently from the victim's pocket. The force or threat must be present during the taking; force applied before or after the taking can convert other offences into robbery depending on the temporal connection. Threats need not be explicit — pointing a weapon, blocking the path, or creating a reasonable fear of injury are sufficient.

The penalty for robbery is seven to fourteen years' imprisonment and a fine up to NPR 140,000 — a substantial escalation from the three-year theft maximum, reflecting the violence element and the heightened harm to the victim. Where the robbery involves serious weapons, causing grievous hurt to the victim, or targeting vulnerable victims, the upper band of fourteen years applies. Robbery is squarely a non-compoundable offence (see our victim protection guide) — the State runs the prosecution regardless of any private settlement between the victim and the accused.

What is dacoity under the Penal Code 2074?

Dacoity is robbery committed by five or more persons acting in concert. The Penal Code 2074 treats it as an aggravated form of robbery sitting at the top of the offence ladder. The number element is critical — four offenders is robbery; five or more is dacoity. The rationale is that gang robbery is significantly more dangerous for the victim (the victim is overwhelmed, resistance is futile, and force-multiplier effects increase the probability of grievous hurt), and gang robbery is typically organised with planning, weapons, getaway logistics and division of roles, distinguishing it from opportunistic robbery.

The penalty for dacoity is at the upper end of the robbery range, with longer imprisonment and higher fines than ordinary robbery, and additional charges available under the Organised Crime Prevention Act 2070 where the dacoity is committed by an organised criminal group with continuing existence. Convictions for dacoity typically lead to substantial custodial sentences, with bail rarely granted during trial. The investigation of dacoity cases usually engages the Central Investigation Bureau of Nepal Police for the larger or more organised matters; smaller dacoity cases are handled by the district police station.

Aggravators that apply across the offence ladder

Several aggravators apply across the theft-robbery ladder, lifting sentences within bands and sometimes moving cases between sections:

• Night-time taking. Theft or robbery committed between sunset and sunrise attracts a higher band, reflecting the planning element and the reduced victim protection at night.
• Dwelling-house aggravator. Where the taking is from a dwelling, the privacy and security of the home is invaded, justifying a higher band.
• By servant or employee. Where the offender abused a position of trust — domestic servant, office employee, business associate — the abuse-of-position aggravates the offence.
• Against vulnerable victim. Theft or robbery against a child, elderly person, person with disability, or pregnant woman lifts the sentence within the band.
• Public, religious or government property. Theft of property in this category escalates from Sec. 241 to Sec. 242 with the higher punishment band.
• Use of weapons. Use of firearms, knives, sharp implements or other weapons during the offence aggravates within the robbery range and can engage parallel charges under the Arms and Ammunition Act 2019.
• Causing grievous hurt. Where the offender causes serious injury during the offence, the upper band of the relevant section applies, with potential parallel charges under the Penal Code hurt provisions (Sec. 188 onwards).

The District Court considers all applicable aggravators when fixing the sentence within the statutory band. Where multiple aggravators apply, the sentence sits closer to the upper end. The Sentencing Act 2074 governs the structured assessment, balancing aggravators with any mitigating factors (first-time offender, cooperation with police, restitution to victim, age, expression of remorse, absence of prior record).

Receiving stolen property — the parallel offence

The Penal Code 2074 creates a separate offence for knowingly receiving, retaining or disposing of stolen property. The elements are: (a) the property in question was in fact stolen; (b) the receiver had knowledge or reasonable belief that the property was stolen; and (c) the receiver received, retained, transported, sold or otherwise dealt with the property. The offence is essential to disrupt the economic incentive for theft — without buyers and middlemen, much theft becomes unprofitable. Penalty bands for receiving stolen property are typically below the principal theft band but above purely incidental offences, with the court considering the value of the property, the frequency of receipt and the receiver's role in any larger network.

In practice, prosecution of receivers turns on knowledge proof. The prosecution must show actual knowledge or reasonable belief — not merely that a reasonable person would have known. Knowledge can be established through circumstantial evidence: very low purchase price relative to market value, suspicious circumstances of acquisition, refusal to record the transaction, evasive answers about provenance, and the receiver's history of similar transactions. Defence counsel typically challenges the knowledge element, asserting good-faith purchase from an apparent owner. The receiver's offence can be charged alongside the principal theft or robbery, with the receivers and the principal thieves prosecuted as related cases.

How does restitution to the victim work?

The Penal Code 2074 and the Criminal Procedure Code 2074 together provide for restitution to the victim alongside the criminal punishment. Where stolen property is recovered, the District Court orders its return to the rightful owner. Where the property cannot be recovered (sold, consumed, destroyed), the court orders the offender to pay the value of the property to the victim. The restitution order is enforceable as a money decree against the offender's assets, in addition to any fine paid to the State and any imprisonment served.

For victims, the restitution order is the principal avenue for recovering economic loss. In practice, restitution depends on the offender's ability to pay — where the offender is insolvent, the order is unenforceable in substance even if pronounced. The Crime Victim Protection Act 2075 provides a parallel Compensation Fund route for victims of serious offences (robbery, dacoity, kidnapping, sexual offences) — covered in our Victim Protection Act guide — which is independent of the offender's ability to pay and is funded by court-ordered fines and government grants.

Compoundability — when can theft cases be settled?

Minor theft cases under Section 241 of the Penal Code 2074 may be compoundable in the District Court's discretion, particularly where: the value of the property is low; the offender is a first-time accused; restitution has been made to the victim; and the victim consents to settlement. Compounding terminates the criminal prosecution on the agreed terms — typically restitution plus an apology — and the case does not proceed to conviction. Compounding is a procedural mechanism that recognises proportionality in lower-band offences and rewards genuine restitution.

Aggravated theft, burglary, robbery and dacoity are non-compoundable. The State runs the prosecution as a public-interest matter and private settlement between victim and offender does not terminate the case. Victim wishes can affect sentencing within the band as a mitigating factor (the court can sit at the lower end where restitution and reconciliation are evidenced) but cannot end the prosecution. For accused persons in non-compoundable cases, the focus shifts from settlement to defence strategy — challenging the elements, identifying weaknesses in the prosecution evidence, and presenting mitigation at sentencing.

Bail and investigation in theft and robbery cases

Bail is generally available for ordinary theft under Section 241 at the District Court's discretion, particularly for first-time accused with strong community ties, no risk of evidence tampering, and willingness to comply with conditions. For aggravated theft under Section 242, bail is granted on stricter terms, often with cash bond and reporting conditions. For robbery under Section 244, bail is significantly harder given the 7-to-14-year band and the violent conduct element; the prosecution typically seeks judicial custody during investigation. For dacoity, judicial custody is the norm and bail is rarely granted before trial.

Investigation begins with the FIR registered at the police station with territorial jurisdiction. Theft and robbery are cognisable offences, so the police can register the FIR, arrest without warrant where the offender is identified, and search premises and seize stolen property without prior court authorisation in urgent circumstances. The recovery memo at the time of seizure is critical evidence — a clean memo with witnesses, full description of items, photographs, and proper sealing of recovered property protects the chain of custody all the way to the District Court. Where the memo is defective, defence counsel can effectively challenge the prosecution case on chain-of-custody grounds. The full filing pathway, including evidentiary requirements and procedural timelines, is set out in our filing a case in Nepal guide.

Defences in theft and robbery cases

The principal defences available to an accused in a theft or robbery prosecution are: (a) identification challenge — the accused was not the person who carried out the offence, supported by alibi; (b) consent — in family or business contexts where the alleged offender had permission to take the property; (c) ownership challenge — the accused was in fact the lawful owner of the property, or had a colour-of-right belief that they were; (d) recovery procedure challenge — the search warrant was invalid, the recovery memo was defective, the chain of custody was broken; (e) value classification — the property value does not push the case into the higher Section 242 aggravated band; (f) force-element challenge in robbery cases — the prosecution cannot prove that force or threat was used during the taking, so the case should be theft not robbery; and (g) good-faith receipt for receivers of stolen property — the accused did not know and could not have reasonably believed that the property was stolen.

The defences engage the general principles of criminal liability set out in Chapter 3 of the Penal Code and explained in our general principles of criminal liability guide. Defence preparation is fact-specific. Where the recovery procedure is the weak link in the prosecution case, counsel focuses cross-examination on the search and seizure officers, the witnesses to the memo, and the custody chain. Where identification is the weak link, counsel focuses on identification parade procedure, the lighting and distance at the time of the offence, and any inconsistencies in the victim's identification statements. The strongest available line on the facts drives the strategy.

How can Alpine Law Associates help with theft and robbery cases?

Alpine Law Associates handles theft, burglary, robbery and dacoity matters from both sides — as defence counsel for accused persons and as victim's counsel supporting prosecution and restitution recovery. For accused persons, we run the defence from the moment of arrest through trial: representation at police interrogation, bail applications at the first court appearance, structured defence preparation through the trial, cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, sentencing arguments at conviction, and the 35-day appellate route to the High Court and onward to the Supreme Court on substantial questions of law.

For victims, we coordinate the FIR registration, support the police investigation, brief the District Attorney on the victim-impact dimension, appear as victim's advocate at trial to support the restitution order, file the Crime Victim Protection Act 2075 Compensation Fund application where eligibility is met, and pursue parallel civil claims for damages where the criminal restitution is inadequate. As a full-service criminal-law practice, we coordinate theft and robbery matters with related insurance claims, employment-discipline questions, and property-recovery civil suits in a single counsel relationship.

Speak with our lawyers today →

Last reviewed: April 2026