Section 127 defines "wrongful confinement" as preventing a person from moving beyond certain circumscribed limits, and sets out a graded series of punishments: the ordinary offence, confinement for three or more days, confinement for ten or more days, confining a person despite a liberation writ, secret confinement, and confinement to extort property or a confession.
Verified against the National Crime Records Bureau's official BNS–IPC concordance (Sankalan Portal), which maps each sub-section to a separate old IPC provision, and cross-checked directly against the bare text of all eight provisions.
| BNS section | IPC, 1860 equivalent | Category |
|---|---|---|
| 127(1) | 340 | Exact |
| 127(2) | 342 | Substantively changed |
| 127(3) | 343 | Substantively changed |
| 127(4) | 344 | Substantively changed |
| 127(5) | 345 | Substantively changed |
| 127(6) | 346 | Substantively changed |
| 127(7) | 347 | Exact |
| 127(8) | 348 | Exact |
Comparing the texts word for word: sub-section (2) changes "simple imprisonment" to "imprisonment of either description" and raises the maximum fine from one thousand rupees to five thousand rupees. Sub-section (3) raises the maximum imprisonment term from two years to three years and adds a new fine ceiling of ten thousand rupees where the old IPC left the fine uncapped. Sub-section (4) raises the maximum imprisonment term from three years to five years and adds a new mandatory minimum fine of ten thousand rupees where the old IPC imposed no minimum. Sub-section (5) adds "and shall also be liable to fine," where old IPC Section 345 imposed no fine at all. Sub-section (6) raises the additional imprisonment term from two years to three years and likewise adds "and shall also be liable to fine," where old IPC Section 346 imposed no fine. Sub-sections (1), (7), and (8) are reproduced without change.
| Sub-section | Conduct | Punishment | Cognizable / Bailable / Court |
|---|---|---|---|
| (2) | Wrongfully confining any person | Imprisonment for 1 year, or fine of ₹5,000, or both | Cognizable, Bailable, Any Magistrate |
| (3) | Confining for 3 or more days | Imprisonment for 3 years, or fine of ₹10,000, or both | Cognizable, Bailable, Any Magistrate |
| (4) | Confining for 10 or more days | Imprisonment for 5 years and fine of ₹10,000 | Cognizable, Non-bailable, Magistrate of the first class |
| (5) | Confining despite a liberation writ | Imprisonment for 2 years in addition to any term of imprisonment under any other section, and fine | Cognizable, Bailable, Magistrate of the first class |
| (6) | Confining in secret | Imprisonment for 3 years in addition to other punishment, and fine | Cognizable, Bailable, Magistrate of the first class |
| (7) | Confining to extort property or compel an illegal act | Imprisonment for 3 years and fine | Cognizable, Bailable, Any Magistrate |
| (8) | Confining to extort confession or compel restoration of property | Imprisonment for 3 years and fine | Cognizable, Bailable, Any Magistrate |
(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: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act No. 45 of 2023), as published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary.
This sub-section defines wrongful confinement as restraining a person so as to prevent them from moving beyond certain circumscribed limits — a more serious restriction than the general wrongful restraint under Section 126, which merely prevents movement in a particular direction.
This sub-section fixes the ordinary punishment for wrongful confinement, without regard to duration or any aggravating purpose.
This sub-section escalates the punishment where the confinement lasts three days or more.
This sub-section escalates the punishment further where the confinement lasts ten days or more, also fixing a mandatory minimum fine.
This sub-section punishes continuing to confine a person after knowing that a court has duly issued a writ for that person's liberation, with the punishment added on top of any other applicable punishment.
This sub-section punishes confining a person in a manner intended to keep the fact or place of confinement hidden from interested persons or public servants, in addition to whatever punishment applies for the confinement itself.
This sub-section applies where the confinement's purpose is to extort property or a valuable security, or to compel an illegal act or information facilitating an offence — the confinement counterpart to Section 119's hurt-based offence.
This sub-section applies where the confinement's purpose is to extort a confession or information, or to compel restoration of property — the confinement counterpart to Section 120's hurt-based offence.
This judgment relates to Section 127 as a whole rather than to one specific sub-section, and so is presented together here rather than alongside a particular clause above.
A complainant alleged she had been confined inside the accused's residence, pointing to a recovery memo noting the main gate was locked. The accused's defence, later borne out by the High Court's own finding in a connected proceeding, was that the house had a second, unlocked exit the complainant was free to use at all times. Applying this definition's two-part test — a restraint, and that restraint actually preventing the person from moving beyond a boundary — the Court treated the existence of a genuinely free alternative exit as going to the heart of whether confinement within "circumscribing limits" was made out at all.
Currency check: decided 29 January 2025; no overruling or contrary larger-bench ruling found as of the date this page was last reviewed.
Wrongful restraint (Section 126) prevents a person from proceeding in a particular direction. Wrongful confinement (this section) prevents a person from moving beyond certain circumscribed limits altogether — a more complete restriction on movement.
No. Both are expressly stated to apply "in addition to" other applicable punishment for the underlying confinement, rather than replacing it.
Fines have been added or increased across several tiers, and maximum imprisonment terms have been raised in sub-sections (3), (4), and (6). Sub-sections (1), (7), and (8) are unchanged in substance.
Most tiers are bailable and triable by a Magistrate; sub-section (4) is the exception, being non-bailable and triable by a Magistrate of the first class. See the Quick Reference table above for the classification of each specific tier.