Section 127 BNS: Wrongful confinement

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

Section 127 BNS at a Glance

Section 127 BNS deals with wrongful confinement. It replaced Sections 340, 342, 343, 344, 345, 347 and 348 IPC on 1 July 2024.

Punishment

Section 127(1) BNS is a definition clause and prescribes no term of imprisonment by itself. General punishment for wrongful confinement is provided under Section 127(2) BNS as imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or fine, or both.

IPC Equivalent

Section 340 →

Section 127 BNS Bare Act Text

(1) Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceedings beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said “wrongfully to confine” that person.

Illustrations.

(a) A causes Z to go within a walled space, and locks Z in. Z is thus prevented from proceeding in any direction beyond the circumscribing line of wall. A wrongfully confines Z.

(b) A places men with firearms at the outlets of a building, and tells Z that they will fire at Z if Z attempts to leave the building. A wrongfully confines Z.

(2) Whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.

(3) Whoever wrongfully confines any person for three days, or more, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both.

(4) Whoever wrongfully confines any person for ten days or more, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees.

(5) Whoever keeps any person in wrongful confinement, knowing that a writ for the liberation of that person has been duly issued, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years in addition to any term of imprisonment to which he may be liable under any other section of this Chapter and shall also be liable to fine.

(6) Whoever wrongfully confines any person in such manner as to indicate an intention that the confinement of such person may not be known to any person interested in the person so confined, or to any public servant, or that the place of such confinement may not be known to or discovered by any such person or public servant as hereinbefore mentioned, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years in addition to any other punishment to which he may be liable for such wrongful confinement and shall also be liable to fine.

(7) Whoever wrongfully confines any person for the purpose of extorting from the person confined, or from any person interested in the person confined, any property or valuable security or of constraining the person confined or any person interested in such person to do anything illegal or to give any information which may facilitate the commission of an offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

(8) Whoever wrongfully confines any person for the purpose of extorting from the person confined or any person interested in the person confined any confession or any information which may lead to the detection of an offence or misconduct, or for the purpose of constraining the person confined or any person interested in the person confined to restore or to cause the restoration of any property or valuable security or to satisfy any claim or demand, or to give information which may lead to the restoration of any property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Source: Section 127, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

Section 127 BNS in the IPC (Previous Law)

Section 127 BNS replaced Sections 340, 342, 343, 344, 345, 347 and 348 IPC from 1 July 2024.

Each sub-section below names its own source.

FAQs on Section 127 BNS

Under Section 127(1) BNS, what is the difference between wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement?▼

Wrongful restraint stops a person from going in a particular direction. Wrongful confinement is more serious because it keeps the person within fixed boundaries and prevents free movement altogether. The difference is mainly about the extent of restriction.

Under Section 127(1) BNS, can locking someone in a room be wrongful confinement?▼

Yes, if a person is locked inside a room and cannot leave freely, it can amount to wrongful confinement. The same can apply if exits are blocked or guards are placed to stop escape. The court will look at the facts and the intention behind the act.

Is the offence under Section 127(1) BNS bailable?▼

Yes, it is generally a bailable offence. That means the accused can usually seek bail as a matter of right, subject to procedure and conditions imposed by the court. The exact treatment may still depend on the facts and any connected offences.

Can a family member be booked under Section 127(1) BNS?▼

Yes. Relationship does not give anyone a legal right to confine another person. If a family member unlawfully prevents someone from leaving a place, criminal liability can arise.

What is wrongful confinement under Section 127(2) BNS?▼

Wrongful confinement means stopping a person from going beyond certain fixed limits, as defined in Section 127(1) BNS. When someone is kept within a room, building, walled area, or any bounded space so they cannot leave, it is punishable under Section 127(2) BNS.

Under Section 127(2) BNS, what has to be proved for wrongful confinement?▼

It must be shown that the person was wrongfully restrained in a way that prevented them from moving beyond specific surrounding limits. The section's illustrations show that this can happen by locking someone in a walled space or by placing armed men at the exits of a building so the person cannot leave.

Is Section 127(2) BNS bailable?▼

Yes. This is a bailable offence, which means bail can be claimed as a matter of right. The accused is normally released on furnishing bail, subject to the usual conditions the court or police may impose.

What is the punishment for wrongful confinement under Section 127(2) BNS?▼

Under Section 127(2) BNS, the punishment for wrongful confinement is imprisonment of either description up to one year, or fine up to five thousand rupees, or both. If the confinement lasts three days or more under Section 127(3) BNS, the punishment may extend to three years, or fine up to ten thousand rupees, or both; if it lasts ten days or more under Section 127(4) BNS, imprisonment may extend to five years and the offender is also liable to a fine of not less than ten thousand rupees.

Under Section 127(2) BNS, how is wrongful confinement different from wrongful restraint?▼

Wrongful confinement is a stricter form of restraint where the person is prevented from going beyond certain circumscribing limits. Blocking someone in a bounded area is wrongful confinement under Section 127 BNS, whereas wrongful restraint under Section 126 BNS stops movement in a particular direction.

What is wrongful confinement under Section 127(3) BNS?▼

Section 127(3) BNS applies when a person is wrongfully confined for three days or more. Wrongful confinement means preventing someone from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits, such as keeping them locked inside a room or building.

What has to be proved under Section 127(3) BNS?▼

It must be shown that the victim was wrongfully confined within circumscribing limits as defined in Section 127(1) BNS, and that this confinement continued for three days or more.

Is Section 127(3) BNS bailable?▼

Yes. This is a bailable offence, which means bail can be claimed as a matter of right. The accused is normally released on furnishing bail, subject to the usual conditions the court or police may impose.

What is the punishment under Section 127(3) BNS?▼

Under Section 127(3) BNS, wrongful confinement for three days or more is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both.

How is Section 127(3) BNS different from ordinary wrongful confinement?▼

Ordinary wrongful confinement under Section 127(2) BNS is punishable with imprisonment up to one year, or fine up to five thousand rupees, or both. Section 127(3) BNS is an aggravated offence that applies specifically when the wrongful confinement lasts for three days or more, carrying a higher punishment of up to three years' imprisonment, or fine up to ten thousand rupees, or both.

What is wrongful confinement under Section 127(4) BNS?▼

Section 127(4) BNS applies when a person is wrongfully confined for ten days or more. Wrongful confinement means preventing a person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits, such as locking them in a room or bounded compound.

What has to be proved under Section 127(4) BNS?▼

It must be shown that the person was wrongfully confined within circumscribing limits as defined in Section 127(1) BNS, and that the confinement lasted for ten days or more.

Is Section 127(4) BNS bailable?▼

Yes. This is a bailable offence, which means bail can be claimed as a matter of right. The accused is normally released on furnishing bail, subject to the usual conditions the court or police may impose.

What is the punishment under Section 127(4) BNS?▼

Under Section 127(4) BNS, wrongful confinement for ten days or more is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and the offender shall also be liable to a fine which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees.

How is Section 127(4) BNS different from shorter wrongful confinement?▼

Ordinary wrongful confinement under Section 127(2) BNS carries up to one year's imprisonment, or fine up to five thousand rupees, or both, and confinement for three days or more under Section 127(3) BNS carries up to three years' imprisonment, or fine up to ten thousand rupees, or both. Section 127(4) BNS applies when the confinement lasts ten days or more, raising the punishment to imprisonment up to five years and liability to a fine of at least ten thousand rupees.

What does Section 127(5) BNS punish in simple words?▼

It punishes the act of keeping someone confined even after a lawful writ has ordered their release. The law treats this as a serious interference with personal liberty and court authority. The wrong is in ignoring the release order.

Under Section 127(5) BNS, does it matter whether the original confinement was legal?▼

Yes, it can matter, but this section focuses on what happens after the writ is issued. Even if the person was lawfully confined earlier, continuing the confinement after the release order can still attract this section. The key point is the deliberate refusal to release.

Who can be held liable under Section 127(5) BNS?▼

Any person who has control over the confinement and knowingly continues it after the writ can be liable. This may include a private individual, a guard, or anyone acting on behalf of another person. The court looks at control, knowledge, and intention.

Is Section 127(5) BNS the same as illegal detention by police?▼

Not exactly. Illegal detention by police may be covered by other provisions depending on the facts. This section is narrower and applies where a release writ has already been issued and the person is still kept confined.

What does Section 127(6) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita cover?▼

Section 127(6) BNS covers wrongful confinement done in a secretive way. It applies when a person is confined so that people interested in that person, or a public servant, may not know about the confinement or may not discover the place where the person is being kept.

What has to be proved under Section 127(6) BNS?▼

It must first be shown that there was wrongful confinement under Section 127 BNS. In addition, the manner of confinement must indicate an intention to hide the confinement itself or hide the place of confinement from interested persons or a public servant.

What punishment is given for secretly wrongfully confining someone under Section 127(6) BNS?▼

The section prescribes imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, in addition to any other punishment for the wrongful confinement. It also says the person shall be liable to fine.

How is Section 127(6) BNS different from ordinary wrongful confinement?▼

Ordinary wrongful confinement is defined in Section 127(1) BNS and punished under Section 127(2) BNS. Section 127(6) BNS is about confinement carried out with an apparent intention to keep the confinement or the place of confinement hidden from concerned persons or a public servant, and it adds extra punishment on that basis.

What is the main difference between wrongful confinement and the offence under Section 127(7) BNS?▼

Wrongful confinement by itself is only about restraining a person unlawfully. This section applies when that confinement is used to extort property, obtain something valuable, or force the person to do an illegal act. The extra element of coercive purpose makes the offence more serious.

Under Section 127(7) BNS, does the victim have to actually give money or do the illegal act?▼

No. The offence is complete once the person is wrongfully confined with the required intent. Actual payment, delivery of property, or commission of the illegal act is not necessary.

Is the offence under Section 127(7) BNS bailable?▼

Yes, it is generally bailable. That means the accused can seek bail as a matter of right, subject to the procedure and conditions applied by the court or police.

Can more than one person be charged under Section 127(7) BNS?▼

Yes. Anyone who directly confines the victim, helps in the confinement, or shares the common intention can be charged. Liability is not limited to the person who physically locks up the victim.

What is the main idea behind Section 127 BNS?▼

This section punishes the use of wrongful confinement as a tool of coercion. The person is not merely confined by mistake or negligence. The confinement must be meant to force a confession or make someone return property or a document.

Under Section 127(8) BNS, does actual confession or return of property need to happen?▼

No, not necessarily. The offence is made out once wrongful confinement is used with the required intent. The law does not wait for the victim to actually confess or hand over the property.

Can a private person be charged under Section 127(8) BNS?▼

Yes. This section is not limited to police officers or public servants. Any person who unlawfully confines another for such pressure tactics can face liability.

Is Section 127(8) BNS the same as kidnapping or simple wrongful confinement?▼

No, it is more specific than ordinary wrongful confinement. The added element is the purpose of extorting a confession or compelling restoration of property. That purpose is what brings the conduct within this section.

Section 127 BNS: Sub-sections Explained

Section 127(1) BNS: Wrongful confinement

▶

Bare Act Text

(1) Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceedings beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said “wrongfully to confine” that person.

Illustrations.

(a) A causes Z to go within a walled space, and locks Z in. Z is thus prevented from proceeding in any direction beyond the circumscribing line of wall. A wrongfully confines Z.

(b) A places men with firearms at the outlets of a building, and tells Z that they will fire at Z if Z attempts to leave the building. A wrongfully confines Z.

Explained in Simple Words

Section 127(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) defines wrongful confinement. It applies when a person is wrongfully restrained in such a manner as to prevent them from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits. The restraint may be physical, or by locking a room, blocking exits, or placing armed guards to prevent escape. The key point is that the person's freedom of movement beyond fixed boundaries is taken away without lawful justification.

This provision applies to any person who intentionally confines another without legal authority. In practice, it is often seen in family disputes, landlord-tenant conflicts, workplace quarrels, and cases involving threats or force. The law matters because confinement is not only a private wrong. It is a criminal act against personal liberty.

Even short periods of confinement can attract liability if the ingredients are proved. While Section 127(1) BNS defines the offence and provides two illustrations, the punishments for general and aggravated forms of wrongful confinement are set out in Section 127(2) to (8) BNS.

Key Ingredients

  • Wrongfully restraining any person under Section 126(1) BNS
  • Preventing that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits under Section 127(1) BNS

Punishment

🔒 Section 127(1) BNS is a definition clause and prescribes no term of imprisonment by itself. General punishment for wrongful confinement is provided under Section 127(2) BNS as imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or fine, or both.

💰 No fine is prescribed in Section 127(1) BNS itself; under Section 127(2) BNS, the fine for wrongful confinement may extend to five thousand rupees.

Wrongful confinement consists of wrongfully restraining a person so as to prevent movement beyond circumscribing limits. Because Section 127(1) BNS is the definition sub-section, it prescribes no standalone penalty, while punishment for ordinary wrongful confinement is enacted in Section 127(2) BNS and aggravated forms are punished under Section 127(3) to (8) BNS.

Real-World Example

At an engineering warehouse in Ghaziabad, factory manager Alok called machine operator Naresh into a windowless storage vault after an argument regarding unpaid wages. Once Naresh stepped inside, Alok closed the heavy steel door from the outside, turned the padlock, and pocketed the key, refusing to release him for four hours despite repeated protests. Naresh was completely prevented from proceeding in any direction beyond the circumscribing walls of the room. Alok wrongfully confined Naresh as defined under Section 127(1) BNS, an act punishable under Section 127(2) BNS.

When This Does Not Apply

  • The accused did not wrongfully restrain any person within the meaning of Section 126(1) BNS
  • The person was not prevented from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits, remaining free to exit in another direction

Previous Law

IPC 340 → Section 127(1) BNS

Section 340 IPC is succeeded by Section 127(1) BNS. Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Section 127(1) BNS consolidates wrongful confinement, placing the definition and its two illustrations in sub-section 1, while the punishments previously scattered across Section 342 to Section 348 IPC are enacted in sub-sections 2 through 8. The statutory wording and elements of the definition are carried forward unchanged.

Section 127(2) BNS: Punishment for wrongful confinement

▶

Bare Act Text

(2) Whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.

Explained in Simple Words

Section 127(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) prescribes the general punishment for wrongful confinement. Whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both. Under this sub-section, the maximum fine is increased from one thousand rupees to five thousand rupees.

Key Ingredients

  • Wrongfully confining any person under Section 127(1) BNS
  • Preventing that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits

Punishment

Bailable ⓘCognizable ⓘCompoundable ⓘ🏛️ Any Magistrate ⓘ

🔒 Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year under Section 127(2) BNS, unchanged from the earlier law.

💰 Fine which may extend to five thousand rupees under Section 127(2) BNS, increased fivefold from one thousand rupees under the earlier law.

Under Section 127(2) BNS, wrongful confinement is punishable with imprisonment of either description for up to one year, or with fine up to five thousand rupees, or with both. The primary change is the fivefold increase of the maximum fine from one thousand rupees to five thousand rupees, while the maximum imprisonment term of one year remains unchanged.

Real-World Example

In a commercial warehouse in Surat, shop owner Deepak suspected shop assistant Kiran of pocketing cash from the till. Deepak ordered Kiran into an inventory stockroom, locked the heavy wooden door from the outside with an iron padlock, and refused to let her leave for seven hours despite her repeated requests to be released. Kiran was completely prevented from moving beyond the walls of the stockroom in any direction. Deepak committed wrongful confinement, punishable under Section 127(2) BNS.

When This Does Not Apply

  • The accused did not wrongfully restrain the person within the meaning of Section 126(1) BNS
  • The person was not prevented from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits

Previous Law

IPC 342 → Section 127(2) BNS

Section 342 IPC is succeeded by Section 127(2) BNS. Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, all wrongful confinement provisions formerly spanning Section 340 to Section 348 IPC are consolidated into Section 127(2) BNS, with general punishment enacted in sub-section 2. The maximum fine increases fivefold from one thousand rupees under Section 342 IPC to five thousand rupees under Section 127(2) BNS. The maximum term of imprisonment of either description remains one year, and procedural classifications continue without change.

Section 127(3) BNS: Wrongful confinement for three or more days

▶

Bare Act Text

(3) Whoever wrongfully confines any person for three days, or more, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both.

Explained in Simple Words

Section 127(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) punishes wrongful confinement lasting for three days or more with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both. Under this provision, maximum imprisonment is increased from two years to three years, and the fine is capped at ten thousand rupees.

Key Ingredients

  • Wrongfully confining any person under Section 127(1) BNS
  • Maintaining such confinement for three days, or more under Section 127(3) BNS

Punishment

Bailable ⓘCognizable ⓘCompoundable ⓘ🏛️ Any Magistrate ⓘ

🔒 Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years under Section 127(3) BNS, increased from up to two years under the earlier law.

💰 Fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees under Section 127(3) BNS, whereas the earlier law prescribed no statutory ceiling on fine.

Under Section 127(3) BNS, wrongful confinement for three days or more is punishable with imprisonment of either description for up to three years, or with fine up to ten thousand rupees, or with both. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita increases the maximum imprisonment term from two years to three years and sets an explicit fine ceiling of ten thousand rupees.

Real-World Example

At a private dairy farmhouse outside Rohtak, farm owner Satish accused laborer Dinesh of stealing sacks of cattle feed. Satish locked Dinesh inside a windowless grain storehouse, padlocked the exterior iron latch, and kept him detained there from Monday morning until Friday afternoon without telephone access or liberty to leave. Dinesh was continuously prevented from moving beyond the walls of the storehouse for more than four days before local villagers intervened. Because the wrongful confinement lasted three days or more, Satish committed the aggravated offence punishable under Section 127(3) BNS.

When This Does Not Apply

  • The accused did not wrongfully confine the person
  • The wrongful confinement did not last for three days, or more

Previous Law

IPC 343 → Section 127(3) BNS

Section 343 IPC is succeeded by Section 127(3) BNS. Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, wrongful confinement provisions are consolidated into Section 127(3) BNS, with wrongful confinement for three days or more enacted in sub-section 3. The maximum term of imprisonment of either description increases from two years under Section 343 IPC to three years under Section 127(3) BNS. Furthermore, Section 127(3) BNS specifies a fine ceiling of ten thousand rupees, whereas Section 343 IPC set no maximum fine figure.

Section 127(4) BNS: Wrongful confinement for ten or more days

▶

Bare Act Text

(4) Whoever wrongfully confines any person for ten days or more, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees.

Explained in Simple Words

Section 127(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) punishes wrongful confinement for ten days or more with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and the offender shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees. Under this provision, maximum imprisonment is increased from three years to five years, and a minimum fine of ten thousand rupees is stipulated.

Key Ingredients

  • Wrongfully confining any person under Section 127(1) BNS
  • Maintaining such confinement for ten days, or more under Section 127(4) BNS

Punishment

Bailable ⓘCognizable ⓘCompoundable ⓘ🏛️ Any Magistrate ⓘ

🔒 Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years under Section 127(4) BNS, increased from up to three years under the earlier law.

💰 The offender shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees under Section 127(4) BNS, whereas the earlier law set no statutory minimum fine.

Under Section 127(4) BNS, wrongful confinement for ten days or more is punishable with imprisonment of either description for up to five years, and the offender is also liable to a fine of not less than ten thousand rupees. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita increases the maximum term of imprisonment from three years to five years and introduces a minimum fine of ten thousand rupees.

Real-World Example

In an isolated farmhouse outside Panipat, workshop proprietor Suresh suspected lathe operator Mohan of misappropriating commercial metal fittings. Suresh locked Mohan inside a windowless brick storeroom on the premises, secured the iron shutter with a heavy padlock, and detained him for twelve consecutive days without communication with the outside world or freedom to leave. Mohan was continuously restrained within the circumscribed boundary of the room until police officers acting on a family missing report rescued him. Because the wrongful confinement lasted ten days or more, Suresh committed the aggravated offence punishable under Section 127(4) BNS.

When This Does Not Apply

  • The accused did not wrongfully confine the person
  • The wrongful confinement did not last for ten days, or more

Previous Law

IPC 344 → Section 127(4) BNS

Section 344 IPC is succeeded by Section 127(4) BNS. Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, wrongful confinement provisions are consolidated into Section 127(4) BNS, with wrongful confinement for ten days or more enacted in sub-section 4. The maximum term of imprisonment of either description increases from three years under Section 344 IPC to five years under Section 127(4) BNS. In addition, Section 127(4) BNS specifies that any fine imposed shall not be less than ten thousand rupees, establishing a statutory minimum floor for monetary penalties.

Section 127(5) BNS: Wrongful confinement of person for whose liberation writ has been issued

▶

Bare Act Text

(5) Whoever keeps any person in wrongful confinement, knowing that a writ for the liberation of that person has been duly issued, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years in addition to any term of imprisonment to which he may be liable under any other section of this Chapter and shall also be liable to fine.

Explained in Simple Words

Section 127 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) this section deals with a very specific kind of wrongful confinement. It applies when a person is kept confined even after a writ has been issued for that person’s release. In simple terms, once the law has ordered that the person be freed, anyone who continues to hold them back can attract liability under this provision.

The section mainly protects the authority of the court and the personal liberty of the individual. It is meant to stop deliberate disobedience of a lawful release order. In practice, this can arise in custody disputes, detention matters, or situations where someone refuses to let a person go despite a valid legal direction.

The focus is on the act of confinement after the release writ, not on the original reason for detention. If the confinement continues knowingly, the person responsible can face criminal consequences.

Key Ingredients

  • Keeping any person in wrongful confinement under Section 127(1) BNS
  • Knowing that a writ for the liberation of that person has been duly issued
  • Maintaining confinement in defiance of the liberation writ

Punishment

Bailable ⓘCognizable ⓘNon-Compoundable ⓘ🏛️ Magistrate of the first class ⓘ

🔒 Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years in addition to any term of imprisonment to which the offender may be liable under any other section of the Chapter under Section 127(5) BNS, unchanged from the earlier law.

💰 The offender is also liable to fine under Section 127(5) BNS, whereas no fine was provided under the earlier law.

Under Section 127(5) BNS, keeping a person in wrongful confinement knowing that a writ for their liberation has been duly issued is punishable with imprisonment of either description for up to two years in addition to any other term of imprisonment under the Chapter, along with liability to fine. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita adds express liability to fine alongside the additional two-year imprisonment term.

Real-World Example

In a private nursing facility in Karnal, administrator Rakesh detained patient Geeta in a locked ward over contested treatment charges. Relatives of Geeta petitioned the High Court, which issued a writ of habeas corpus directing her immediate liberation. The formal writ was delivered to Rakesh, who acknowledged receipt in writing. Despite knowing that a writ for her liberation had been duly issued, Rakesh kept Geeta locked inside the ward for another forty-eight hours before releasing her. Rakesh committed the offence under Section 127(5) BNS, incurring imprisonment up to two years and liability to fine, in addition to any term of imprisonment for the underlying wrongful confinement under Section 127(2) BNS.

When This Does Not Apply

  • No writ for the liberation of the confined person had been duly issued
  • The accused had no knowledge that a writ for liberation had been issued, which negates the essential requirement of actual knowledge under the section
  • The confined person was promptly released upon notice of the writ, so that confinement was not maintained with knowledge of the order
  • The accused did not keep the person in wrongful confinement

Previous Law

IPC 345 → Section 127(5) BNS

Section 345 IPC is succeeded by Section 127(5) BNS. Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, wrongful confinement offences are unified into Section 127(5) BNS, with wrongful confinement following the issuance of a liberation writ placed in sub-section 5. The primary change in punishment is that Section 127(5) BNS adds liability to fine, whereas Section 345 IPC authorized imprisonment alone. The substantive requirement that imprisonment of up to two years runs in addition to any other term of imprisonment for wrongful confinement remains unchanged.

Section 127(6) BNS: Wrongful confinement

▶

Bare Act Text

(6) Whoever wrongfully confines any person in such manner as to indicate an intention that the confinement of such person may not be known to any person interested in the person so confined, or to any public servant, or that the place of such confinement may not be known to or discovered by any such person or public servant as hereinbefore mentioned, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years in addition to any other punishment to which he may be liable for such wrongful confinement and shall also be liable to fine.

Explained in Simple Words

Section 127(6) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) deals with secret wrongful confinement. It applies to anyone who wrongfully confines a person in a manner that indicates an intention that the confinement itself, or the place of confinement, may not be known to or discovered by any person interested in the confined person or by any public servant.

A person who commits this offence shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, in addition to any other punishment to which they may be liable for such wrongful confinement, and shall also be liable to fine.

Two points in the enacted text are worth noting. First, the prosecution does not need to show that the confinement remained secret forever, only that the manner of confinement indicated an intention to keep the confinement or its location hidden from interested persons, such as family members, or from a public servant, such as the police. Second, the imprisonment of up to three years is added on top of the punishment for the underlying wrongful confinement.

Key Ingredients

  • A person was wrongfully confined
  • The confinement prevented movement beyond certain circumscribing limits
  • The confinement was in a manner indicating an intention to keep the confinement or its place unknown
  • The intention was that any person interested in the confined person should not know of the confinement, or know or discover its place
  • Or the intention was that a public servant should not know of the confinement, or know or discover its place

Punishment

Bailable ⓘCognizable ⓘCompoundable ⓘ🏛️ Magistrate of the first class ⓘ

🔒 Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, in addition to any other punishment to which the offender may be liable for such wrongful confinement.

💰 Fine may be imposed in addition to imprisonment.

Wrongfully confining a person in a manner indicating an intention to keep the confinement or its place unknown to or undiscovered by any person interested in the confined person or any public servant is punishable with imprisonment of either description for up to three years in addition to any other punishment for the wrongful confinement, and the offender is also liable to fine.

Real-World Example

After a quarrel on the outskirts of Rajkot, Fatima pushed Priya into a small storeroom behind a workshop and locked it from outside. She took away Priya’s phone, told Ritu not to inform Priya’s family, and kept the shutter closed so neighbours and police would not learn where Priya was. Priya could not go beyond the locked room and was prevented from leaving in any direction. These facts amount to wrongful confinement, and also show an intention to keep both the confinement and the place of confinement hidden from interested persons and public servants.

When This Does Not Apply

  • A person is stopped on a road for a moment but is not kept within circumscribing limits
  • A person stays inside a room by choice and is free to leave at any time
  • A person is wrongfully confined, but there is no indication of an intention to hide the confinement from interested persons or a public servant
  • The place of confinement is openly known to family members and the police, with no attempt to conceal it

Section 127(7) BNS: Wrongful confinement to extort property, or constrain to illegal act

▶

Bare Act Text

(7) Whoever wrongfully confines any person for the purpose of extorting from the person confined, or from any person interested in the person confined, any property or valuable security or of constraining the person confined or any person interested in such person to do anything illegal or to give any information which may facilitate the commission of an offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Explained in Simple Words

Section 127 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) this section deals with a serious abuse of restraint. It applies where a person is wrongfully confined and that confinement is used as pressure to make the victim give property, sign something, or do an illegal act. The core idea is not just confinement, but confinement used as a tool for extortion or coercion.

The law can apply to anyone who orders, carries out, or helps in such confinement. In practice, it often arises in kidnapping, private detention, debt recovery pressure, business disputes, or threats made to force compliance. The victim need not actually hand over property or commit the illegal act.

What matters is the wrongful confinement with the required intent. This provision is significant because it protects personal liberty and also prevents confinement from being used as a method of extortion or forced obedience. Courts treat such conduct seriously because it combines unlawful restraint with coercion.

Key Ingredients

  • Wrongfully confining any person under Section 127(1) BNS
  • Confining for the purpose of extorting property or valuable security under Section 127(7) BNS
  • Confining to constrain any person to do anything illegal or to give any information which may facilitate the commission of an offence

Punishment

Bailable ⓘCognizable ⓘNon-Compoundable ⓘ🏛️ Any Magistrate ⓘ

🔒 Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years under Section 127(7) BNS, unchanged from the earlier law.

💰 The offender is also liable to fine under Section 127(7) BNS, unchanged from the earlier law.

Under Section 127(7) BNS, wrongful confinement for the purpose of extorting property or valuable security, constraining an illegal act, or obtaining information that may facilitate an offence is punishable with imprisonment of either description for up to three years and liability to fine. The legal ingredients and punishment are carried forward without alteration.

Real-World Example

In a secluded godown in Gwalior, moneylender Vikram locked merchant Rakesh inside an iron storage room and retained the only key. Vikram warned Rakesh that he would not be released until his brother delivered the title deeds to their commercial shop and signed a blank stamp paper undertaking an illegal mortgage transfer. Rakesh remained confined within the locked room for two days under coercive pressure. Vikram committed wrongful confinement for the purpose of extorting valuable security and constraining the execution of an illegal transaction, an offence punishable under Section 127(7) BNS.

When This Does Not Apply

  • The confinement was not carried out for extorting property, compelling an illegal act, or facilitating an offence, falling instead under ordinary wrongful confinement provisions
  • Property was demanded through extortionate threats without subjecting the victim to wrongful confinement, which falls under Section 308 BNS
  • The accused did not wrongfully confine the person

Previous Law

IPC 347 → Section 127(7) BNS

Section 347 IPC is succeeded by Section 127(7) BNS. Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, wrongful confinement provisions are consolidated into Section 127(7) BNS, with wrongful confinement to extort property or constrain to an illegal act placed in sub-section 7. The statutory definition, coercive purposes, three-year imprisonment limit, and liability to fine remain substantively unchanged across both enactments.

Section 127(8) BNS: Wrongful confinement to extort confession, or compel restoration of property

▶

Bare Act Text

(8) Whoever wrongfully confines any person for the purpose of extorting from the person confined or any person interested in the person confined any confession or any information which may lead to the detection of an offence or misconduct, or for the purpose of constraining the person confined or any person interested in the person confined to restore or to cause the restoration of any property or valuable security or to satisfy any claim or demand, or to give information which may lead to the restoration of any property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Explained in Simple Words

Section 127 BNS of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) deals with a very specific kind of wrongful confinement. It applies when a person is kept confined so that pressure can be put on them to make a confession, or to force them to return property, restore a document, or do something against their will. The confinement itself is the core wrong.

The purpose behind it makes the offence more serious. This section can apply to private persons, employers, creditors, or anyone who unlawfully restrains another person for coercive reasons. For example, if someone is locked in a room until they sign a statement or hand over valuables, this section may be attracted.

In practice, the law protects personal liberty and prevents forced confessions or recovery of property through intimidation. It is treated as a serious offence because it abuses physical control to extract compliance.

Key Ingredients

  • Wrongfully confining any person under Section 127(1) BNS
  • Confining for the purpose of extorting any confession or information regarding an offence or misconduct under Section 127(8) BNS
  • Confining to compel restoration of property or valuable security or to satisfy a claim or demand

Punishment

Bailable ⓘCognizable ⓘNon-Compoundable ⓘ🏛️ Any Magistrate ⓘ

🔒 Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years under Section 127(8) BNS, unchanged from the earlier law.

💰 The offender is also liable to fine under Section 127(8) BNS, unchanged from the earlier law.

Under Section 127(8) BNS, wrongful confinement to extort a confession or information leading to detection of an offence or misconduct, or to compel restoration of property or valuable security or satisfaction of a claim or demand, is punishable with imprisonment of either description for up to three years and liability to fine. The statutory ingredients and punishment are carried forward without alteration.

Real-World Example

In a garment manufacturing unit in Ludhiana, factory proprietor Harish suspected packing supervisor Deepak of stealing rolls of silk fabric. Harish pushed Deepak into an empty basement storage cell, locked the exterior iron padlock, and refused to let him out for eighteen hours, stating that he would remain locked up until he wrote a signed confession admitting the theft and returned the stolen material. Deepak was completely prevented from moving beyond the walls of the basement room. Harish committed wrongful confinement for the purpose of extorting a confession and compelling the restoration of property, an offence punishable under Section 127(8) BNS.

When This Does Not Apply

  • The wrongful confinement was not motivated by an intention to extort a confession, detect misconduct, or compel restoration of property, which falls instead under ordinary wrongful confinement provisions
  • The confession or information was sought without wrongfully confining the person

Previous Law

IPC 348 → Section 127(8) BNS

Section 348 IPC is succeeded by Section 127(8) BNS. Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, all wrongful confinement provisions are consolidated into Section 127(8) BNS, with wrongful confinement to extort confession or compel restoration of property enacted in sub-section 8. The statutory wording, specified coercive purposes, three-year imprisonment limit, and liability to fine remain substantively unchanged across both enactments.

Have questions about Section 127 BNS?

Ask NyayGuru for a plain language explanation, punishment details, or how it applies to your situation.

Ask NyayGuru →

Disclaimer: This is for informational purposes only. Always consult a qualified advocate for legal advice.

Sources: Bare Act Text, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 · Last updated: 16 Oct 2026 ·