Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 142

Wrongfully Concealing or Keeping in Confinement, Kidnapped or Abducted Person

Section 142 punishes a person who, knowing that someone has been kidnapped or abducted, wrongfully conceals or confines that person, with the same punishment as if that person had themselves committed the kidnapping or abduction for the same purpose.

Please note: This page reflects our understanding of the law as of the date it was last reviewed. Parliament, the State Legislatures, and the courts continue to amend and interpret this law, and this page may not yet reflect the most recent change. Please verify the current text of the law independently, and consult a licensed advocate for advice on your own matter, before relying on this page.

Corresponding Provision Under Prior Law

Verified against the National Crime Records Bureau's official BNS–IPC concordance (Sankalan Portal), which maps Section 142 to old IPC Section 368, and cross-checked directly against the bare text of both Acts.

BNS section	IPC, 1860 equivalent	Category
142	368	Exact

Comparing the two texts word for word, Section 142 is reproduced without any change from old IPC Section 368.

Quick Reference

Per the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: punishable the same as the underlying kidnapping or abduction offence — cognizable, non-bailable, and triable by whichever court could try that underlying offence.

Statutory Text (Verbatim)

Whoever, knowing that any person has been kidnapped or has been abducted, wrongfully conceals or confines such person, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had kidnapped or abducted such person with the same intention or knowledge, or for the same purpose as that with or for which he conceals or detains such person in confinement.

Source: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act No. 45 of 2023), as published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary.

Explanation & Illustration (Lexovia's Commentary — Not Statutory Text)

Concealing or confining someone known to have been kidnapped or abducted

Explanation (Lexovia's Commentary)

This section extends liability beyond the person who actually carried out the kidnapping or abduction, to anyone who later, knowing that a person has been kidnapped or abducted, wrongfully conceals or confines that person. The punishment tracks whichever of the kidnapping/abduction offences (defined in the preceding sections) matches the purpose or intention behind the concealment or confinement — so a person hiding a kidnapped victim for ransom purposes would be punished as if they themselves had committed kidnapping for ransom.

Illustration (Lexovia's Own Example)

A kidnaps a child for ransom and later asks B, a friend, to hide the child in B's house while ransom negotiations continue. B agrees, knowing the child has been kidnapped for ransom. B is liable under Section 142, punished as if B had committed kidnapping for ransom under Section 140(2), even though B did not participate in the original kidnapping.

Want legal research on any topic or drafting? Order Now →

Judgment(s) Applicable to This Section (Lexovia's Commentary — Quoted Paragraphs Verbatim)

This judgment relates to Section 142 as a whole rather than to one specific sub-section, and so is presented together here rather than alongside a particular clause above.

Nayab & Anr. v. State, CRL.A. 297/2009 (High Court of Delhi, decided 20 October 2022, Swarana Kanta Sharma, J., quoting State v. Tapan Kumar Mandal, (2012) SCC OnLine Del 2422)

Para No. 14 (quoting Tapan Kumar Mandal, para 5)

“In order to invoke Section 368 IPC, three ingredients must be proved i.e., (a) a person has been kidnapped or abducted; (b) the accused was knowing about that fact and (c) the accused must have concealed or confined such person. … Where an accused has no knowledge of the victim having been kidnapped or abducted, he does not render himself liable to punishment under Section 368.”

What This Judgment Means (Lexovia's Commentary)

Two appellants had been convicted of keeping a kidnapped minor concealed in their home, based on a trial court finding that they had withheld information about her whereabouts from her family. On appeal, the Delhi High Court went back to this three-part test — a person must actually have been kidnapped, the accused must have known that, and the accused must have concealed or confined them — and found the prosecution's own witnesses, read as a whole, showed the appellants had told the victim's parents she was with them and that they could take her back, which was the opposite of concealment. Taking the evidence as a whole rather than in fragments, the Court held the second and third ingredients were not established beyond reasonable doubt, and acquitted both appellants.

Currency check: decided 20 October 2022; no overruling or contrary larger-bench ruling found as of the date this page was last reviewed.

Source: copy of the judgment obtained from the High Court of Delhi's official website.

Related / Cross-Referenced Sections

FAQs

Does a person have to have participated in the original kidnapping to be liable under this section?

No. This section applies to anyone who, knowing a person has been kidnapped or abducted, wrongfully conceals or confines them afterward — even if they had no role in the original kidnapping or abduction.

What punishment does a person face under this section?

The same punishment as if they had committed the kidnapping or abduction themselves, with the same intention, knowledge, or purpose that underlies their own act of concealment or confinement.

Does the person need to know the specific purpose behind the original kidnapping?

The punishment is tied to the intention, knowledge, or purpose behind the concealment or confinement itself — so the person's own state of mind while concealing or confining the victim is what determines which kidnapping/abduction offence their punishment is measured against.