The right to personal liberty is a cornerstone of a democratic society governed by the rule of law. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023—India’s new criminal code replacing the Indian Penal Code, 1860—continues to safeguard this fundamental right by criminalising any illegal restriction on an individual’s freedom of movement. Two closely related offences under this domain are wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement.
These offences, now governed by Sections 126 and 127 of the BNS, 2023, are designed to penalise the unlawful curtailment of a person’s liberty without due process.
This article offers a comprehensive overview of both offences, including statutory provisions and judicial interpretations.
Statutory Provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Wrongful Restraint (Section 126)
Section 126(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (previously Section 339 of IPC) defines the offence of wrongful restraint.
“Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person.”
Key Elements of Wrongful Restraint:
To constitute the offence of wrongful restraint, the following ingredients must be present:
1) Voluntary Obstruction:
The accused must have intentionally obstructed the movement of the person.
2) Prevention of Movement in a Lawful Direction:
The person must have a legal right to proceed in that direction.
3) No Physical Contact Necessary:
It is not essential that there be physical force or assault; mere obstruction is sufficient.
Exception:
The exception to Section 126(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 clarifies that the obstruction of a private way—whether over land or water—does not amount to wrongful restraint if the person causing the obstruction honestly believes, in good faith, that they have a lawful right to do so. This means that even if the belief later turns out to be mistaken, as long as the intention was genuine and not malicious, the act will not be considered an offence. The law thus recognises the importance of intent and belief in ownership or right, especially in disputes involving private access routes, and protects individuals from criminal liability when their actions are based on a reasonable and sincere belief of legal entitlement.
Punishment:
As per Section 126(2), the punishment for wrongful restraint is imprisonment up to one month, or fine up to ₹5000, or both.
Wrongful Confinement (Section 127)
Section 127(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (previously Section 340 of IPC) defines the offence of Wrongful Confinement
“Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits is said to wrongfully confine that person.”
Key Elements of Wrongful Confinement:
1) Wrongful Restraint:
The act must first amount to wrongful restraint—i.e., voluntarily preventing a person from proceeding in a direction they have a right to go.
2) Total Obstruction of Movement:
The restraint must be such that it prevents the person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits—essentially confining them to a specific space.
3) Defined Boundaries (Circumscribing Limits):
The person must be enclosed within fixed physical boundaries, preventing escape in all directions.
4) Voluntary Act:
The confinement must be intentional and deliberate, not accidental or due to a genuine mistake.
5) Absence of Lawful Justification:
The confinement must be without any lawful authority or legal excuse.
Punishment for Wrongful Confinement
General Wrongful Confinement
- Imprisonment (simple or rigorous) up to 1 year, or
- Fine up to ₹5,000, or
- Both
Wrongful Confinement for 3 days or more
- Imprisonment (simple or rigorous) up to 3 years, or
- Fine up to ₹10,000, or
- Both
Wrongful Confinement for 10 days or more
- Imprisonment (simple or rigorous) up to 5 years, and
- Fine not less than ₹10,000 (mandatory fine)
Aggravated Wrongful Confinement under Section 127 BNS
1. Confinement Despite Court Order (Sub-section 5)
If a person knowingly continues to keep someone in confinement even after a writ of liberation (such as a habeas corpus) has been lawfully issued by a court for the person’s release, it becomes a more serious offence. This provision ensures respect for judicial authority and compliance with court orders. The punishment for such an act is imprisonment for up to two years, in addition to any punishment already attracted under the general provision of wrongful confinement, along with a fine.
2. Secret Confinement to Avoid Discovery (Sub-section 6)
When someone is confined in such a manner that it is intended to conceal the confinement from any person interested in the welfare of the confined individual (such as a relative or friend) or from public authorities, it is treated more severely. This sub-section addresses instances where confinement is done to hide the fact or place of detention, making rescue or legal intervention difficult. Punishment includes imprisonment for up to three years in addition to any other penalties, along with a fine.
3. Confinement for Extortion or Illegal Coercion (Sub-section 7)
If a person is wrongfully confined with the intent to extort property or valuable security, or to coerce the confined person or someone interested in them into doing something illegal or providing information that could help commit a crime, it becomes a distinct offence. This provision aims to combat acts like kidnapping for ransom or forced confessions, and prescribes imprisonment for up to three years, along with a fine.
4. Confinement to Extract Confession or Recover Property (Sub-section 8)
This provision deals with wrongful confinement to extract a confession, or compel the person (or someone interested in them) to give information leading to the detection of a crime or recovery of property. It also includes situations where the motive is to make the person restore property, satisfy a demand, or disclose information related to such claims. The offence is punishable with imprisonment up to three years and carries a fine.
Key Differences Between Wrongful Restraint and Wrongful Confinement
| Basis | Wrongful Restraint (Section 126 BNS) | Wrongful Confinement (Section 127 BNS) |
|---|---|---|
| Nature | Partial obstruction | Complete restraint |
| Scope | Prevents movement in a specific direction | Prevents movement beyond a defined space |
| Example | Blocking a road | Locking someone in a room |
| Punishment | Maximum 1 month or ₹5000 fine | Ranges up to 5 years, depending on severity |
Important Case Laws
1. Sm. Sovarani Roy and Anr. v. The King and Anr. (1950)
Calcutta High Court set aside the conviction under Section 341 IPC (punishment for wrongful restraint) (currently Section 126 of BNS), where the complainant alleged he was restrained from using a bathroom and privy in a rented premises. Chief Justice Harries held that the dispute was essentially civil in nature, concerning the scope of tenancy rights, and not fit for criminal adjudication.
The Court found that the complainant’s evidence insufficient to establish a tenancy right over the facilities and opined that any right to use them may have been merely a revocable license. Accordingly, the Court acquitted the accused, emphasizing that the matter was more appropriately suited for civil proceedings.
2. Prithvi Nath Pandey & Ors. v. State of U.P. (1993)
The Court upheld the conviction of nine accused under Section 342 IPC (Now Section 127 BNS) for wrongfully confining two police personnel—Constable Shripat Ram and Head Constable Raghunath Rai—after attacking them during the rescue of Dhananjai Pandey. The police officers were forcibly taken and detained near the plani of accused Ramdeo Pandey, where they were later rescued. The Court found sufficient evidence proving that the confinement was voluntary and unlawful, satisfying the ingredients of Section 342 IPC.
However, accused Prithvi Nath Pandey, Chandra Deep Pandey, and Ram Nath Pandey were acquitted of this charge due to lack of active participation in the act of confinement.
Constitutional Perspective: Article 21 and BNS
Article 21 of the Constitution of India states:
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
This fundamental right is central to any discussion of wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement, as these offences directly impact an individual’s freedom of movement—a core component of personal liberty. The protection against arbitrary restraint or confinement by private individuals or state authorities is embedded within the jurisprudence surrounding Article 21.
Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, Sections 126 (wrongful restraint) and 127 (wrongful confinement) codify and criminalise the infringement of this freedom. These sections are not merely penal provisions—they serve as instruments to operationalise the broader constitutional promise of liberty.
Conclusion
The inclusion of wrongful restraint and confinement under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 reaffirms the Indian legal system’s commitment to upholding individual liberty and dignity. These offences go beyond mere physical restrictions—they strike at the core of human autonomy. Whether committed by private individuals or public authorities, such acts are unacceptable in a free society.
With enhanced punishment provisions and judicial scrutiny, Sections 126 and 127 of the BNS offer both deterrence and remedy. Legal literacy, efficient law enforcement, and judicial vigilance are crucial in ensuring these rights are not just theoretical but vigorously protected in practice.
References
[1] Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
[2] Indian Penal Code, 1860
[3] Constitution of India, 1949
[4] Sm. Sovarani Roy and Anr. v. The King and Anr., AIR 1950 Cal 157
[5] Prithvi Nath Pandey & Ors. v. State of U.P., 1994 CRILJ 3623