IPC 342 in the new BNS 2023

If you have been named in an FIR or notice under this section, the section number alone does not decide the outcome — the facts, the evidence and the procedure do. Many cases turn on procedural lapses, bail strategy and the exact ingredients of the offence.

Wrongful confinement is the more serious of the two offences against personal liberty, and the difference from wrongful restraint is that the restriction is complete: the person cannot leave at all, in any direction. It arises in situations ranging from locking someone in a room to detaining an employee, a patient or a borrower until a demand is met. Under the BNS it sits at Section 127.

What the section requires

For the offence to be made out, these ingredients have to be established:

• the accused wrongfully restrained a person
• the restraint prevented that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits
• the restriction was total rather than partial — the person could not leave in any direction

What changed from the IPC

The offence is unchanged and the maximum imprisonment remains one year. The fine rose from ₹1,000 under IPC 342 to ₹5,000 under BNS 127(2), consistent with the BNS approach of raising monetary penalties across the lower offences. The aggravated forms of confinement — confinement for three days or more, for ten days or more, of a person for whose liberation a writ has been issued, in secret, and to extort property or compel an illegal act — are carried over into the sub-sections that follow, with punishments rising accordingly.

How this section is distinguished from related offences

The boundary with wrongful restraint under BNS 126 is the whole question in most cases: restraint is partial obstruction, confinement is total restriction within limits. The limits need not be a locked room; they can be defined by a threat that makes leaving impossible in practical terms. Where confinement is used to extract money or property, extortion under BNS 308 is engaged, and where it is used to compel a person to do something illegal, the aggravated confinement provisions apply. Kidnapping under BNS 137 is different again: it involves taking or enticing a person away, whereas confinement involves keeping them where they are.

How the case proceeds

The offence is cognizable, bailable and triable by a magistrate, and it is compoundable with the permission of the court in the ordinary case. The aggravated forms are treated more seriously and the position on bail and trial changes accordingly, so establishing which sub-section is invoked is the first thing to do. Confinement allegations frequently arise alongside allegations of extortion, assault or criminal intimidation from the same incident.

Evidence that usually decides these cases

What decides these cases is whether the complainant could have left, and the evidence is usually circumstantial. CCTV covering the entrances of the premises is the most objective material, because it shows both whether the complainant was there and whether they were free to move. Call records are important on both sides: a person who was in continuous contact with others during the alleged confinement, or who made no attempt to call for help despite having a phone, presents a picture the court will weigh. In workplace and commercial settings, attendance registers, visitor logs and security records establish who was present and for how long. Where the confinement is said to have been used to extract money, the financial records and any written acknowledgment or agreement signed during the period are central.

How courts approach sentencing

The ordinary offence under BNS 127(2) carries imprisonment of up to one year, or a fine of up to ₹5,000, or both. The aggravated forms carry more, rising with the duration of the confinement and with the purpose for which it was carried out, and confinement in secret or to extort property is treated considerably more seriously.

Defences that commonly apply

The most effective defence is that the complainant was free to leave, established through the physical layout of the premises, the availability of exits, CCTV, and evidence that the complainant moved about or communicated freely during the period. Where the complainant remained voluntarily — in a negotiation, a meeting or a workplace disagreement — that removes the essential element. Consent is a defence where the person remained of their own accord. Where the allegation follows a commercial or employment dispute, and particularly where it was first made after that dispute turned against the complainant, the sequence of events is routinely relied on to suggest the allegation was constructed.

How a case under this section typically progresses

The matter proceeds as a magistrate's case and is comparatively short unless an aggravated sub-section is invoked. Because the offence is bailable in its ordinary form, bail is not usually the contested issue it is in more serious cases. Where the allegation accompanies extortion or assault charges arising from the same incident, the timeline follows those. The offence is compoundable with the court's permission, and where the underlying dispute is commercial it is often resolved together with that dispute.

Documents worth gathering early

Obtain the layout or plan of the premises where the confinement is alleged, since the availability of exits is directly in issue. Request CCTV from the entrances and interior in writing immediately. Collect call detail records for the relevant period for both sides, as they establish whether the complainant was in contact with others and whether any call for help was made. In a workplace or commercial setting, secure attendance registers, visitor logs and security gate records. Where any document was signed during the alleged period — an acknowledgment, a settlement, a cheque — preserve it, together with anything showing the circumstances in which it was signed, since it is usually central to both the confinement allegation and any accompanying extortion charge.

Note on bail and cognizability. Whether an offence is cognizable, and whether it is bailable, is set by the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023, not by the BNS section itself. Because that classification decides whether police can arrest without a warrant and how bail is approached, check it for your specific section with an advocate rather than relying on a general summary.

If you have been named under this section

The central factual question is whether the complainant was actually prevented from leaving, and it is answered by the physical circumstances rather than by assertions: whether a door was locked, whether an exit was available, whether the complainant left at some point and returned, and how long the alleged confinement lasted. Duration matters directly, because confinement for three days or more, and for ten days or more, are separate and more serious offences. Where the allegation arises in a commercial or employment context, the records of who was present and when are usually decisive.

Common misunderstandings

"The fine is still ₹1,000."
Under BNS 127(2) the maximum fine is ₹5,000. The ₹1,000 cap belonged to IPC 342.

"There must be a locked door."
There need not be. What matters is whether the person was prevented from proceeding beyond circumscribing limits, and that can be achieved by threats or by circumstances as much as by a physical barrier.

"Confinement and restraint are interchangeable."
They are separate offences with very different punishments. Restraint under BNS 126 carries one month; confinement under BNS 127 carries one year, and the aggravated forms carry more.

"Duration does not matter."
It matters a great deal. Confinement for three days or more, and for ten days or more, are distinct and more serious offences under the sub-sections that follow.

Related BNS sections

• BNS 127 — Wrongful confinement
• BNS 126 — Wrongful restraint (IPC 341)
• BNS 308 — Extortion (IPC 384)
• BNS 137 — Kidnapping (IPC 363)

Which code applies to your case

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 replaced the Indian Penal Code 1860 with effect from 1 July 2024, and the change is not retrospective. The date the offence is alleged to have been committed decides which code governs it. An offence alleged to have occurred on or after 1 July 2024 proceeds under the BNS. An offence alleged to have occurred before that date continues to be investigated, tried, appealed and punished under the IPC, even where the FIR was registered later. Cases from the transition period frequently cite both numbering systems, which is why the old section number remains worth knowing.

Named under this section? Ask the free AI Advocate →

General information for understanding the IPC→BNS change, not legal advice. The BNS restructured many offences — confirm the exact section, sub-section and punishment with a licensed advocate.