Wrongful restraint
Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with 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. The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) 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.
Exception.—The obstruction of a private way over land or water which a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct, is not an offence within the meaning of this section.
Illustration.
A obstructs a path along which Z has a right to pass, A not believing in good faith that he has a right to stop the path. Z is thereby prevented from passing. A wrongfully restrains Z.
(2) Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.
Section 126, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 339 Wrongful restraint Text carried over almost unchanged 97%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
How this offence is classified
From the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which classifies every offence under the Sanhita. Cognizable means a police officer may arrest without warrant; bailable means bail is a matter of right rather than of the court's discretion.
| Offence | Punishment | Cognizable | Bailable | Triable by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongfully restraining any person. | Simple imprisonment for 1 month, or fine of 5,000 rupees, or both. | Cognizable. | Bailable. | Any Magistrate. |
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Keki Hormusji Gharda vs Mehervan Rustom Irani
Decided under Indian Penal Code 339, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In the absence of express statutory provision creating vicarious criminal liability, company directors and officers cannot be held criminally liable for actions of company employees or contractors merely by virtue of their positions in the company. Criminal liability requires direct overt acts, physical presence, or involvement by the accused. Allegations of instigating or managing affairs of a company do not, by themselves, constitute criminal wrongful restraint when the accused were not physically present at the site and no direct physical obstruction was caused by them. The Magistrate must carefully apply his mind to the facts and law before issuing summons, and must determine whether the allegations, even if taken to be correct, disclose a prima facie offence.
On this section: Definition 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.' Court analyzed the essential ingredients of this provision.
-
Tilak Raj vs State of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal matters where anticipatory bail has been denied by the High Court, the Supreme Court may, in the exercise of its discretionary powers under Article 136 of the Constitution, grant anticipatory bail if the genesis of the occurrence and the nature of the allegations do not mandate custodial arrest, even if serious criminal charges are involved. The grant of such bail is subject to conditions ensuring full cooperation with the investigating officer and effective investigation.
On this section: The accused were charged under these sections of the BNS 2023 (the new criminal code), which replaced the Indian Penal Code. These sections cover various offences of criminal nature. The court examined whether bail could be granted despite these serious charges.
-
Bhera Ram Choudhary vs State of Rajasthan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused is charged with bailable offences, the accused possesses a statutory right to bail under Section 478 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 436 of the Criminal Procedure Code). The judicial officer has no discretion in such cases and must grant bail upon the accused offering surety or bail. The arrest of an accused in bailable offences must be justified by compelling reasons beyond mere suspicion, in accordance with the guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. When the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are absent from the FIR, and the arrest is unlawful and made with malice, the High Court possesses the inherent power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash the FIR and all consequential proceedings. Furthermore, when a person is unlawfully arrested and detained with malicious intent, causing violation of fundamental rights and irreparable injury to dignity, career, and mental well-being, the person is entitled to monetary compensation as a measure of restorative justice, and such compensation should be paid personally by the individuals responsible for the wrongful action rather than by the State.
On this section: The Court examined whether the petitioner's act of locking the school gate constituted wrongful restraint. The Court held that the petitioner acted in good faith and possessed lawful authority as principal to lock the gate to prevent unauthorized occupation of school premises. The exception under Section 126 applies, as the petitioner believed in good faith that he had a lawful right to obstruct the CBEO's unauthorized entry.
-
Kaasula Balraju vs The State of Telangana
Decided under Indian Penal Code 339, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Obstructing public movement in one direction on a road, causing annoyance to the public exercising their right to use that road, constitutes public nuisance under Section 290 IPC read with Section 268 IPC, even if the obstruction is for a political cause like demanding district status. However, such obstruction does not constitute wrongful restraint under Section 341 IPC (which requires preventing movement in any direction), nor does it constitute unlawful assembly under Section 141-145 IPC (which requires criminal force or show of criminal force with specific common objects), and prosecution for disobedience under Section 188 IPC is barred by Section 195 IPC.
On this section: Definition of wrongful restraint - voluntarily obstructing any person to prevent proceeding in any direction they have right to proceed
-
S.mahesh vs The State of Telangana
Decided under Indian Penal Code 339, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Wrongful restraint under Section 339 IPC can be constituted even when a person enters a place voluntarily, if they are subsequently prevented from leaving or proceeding in any direction they have a right to proceed. The voluntary entry does not negate the possibility of wrongful restraint if the person is obstructed from leaving.
On this section: Wrongful restraint - The court found this section was applicable as the petitioner allegedly obstructed the complainant and others from leaving the scene of offence (the petitioner's house), which constitutes wrongful restraint.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 126
What have the courts held on Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Keki Hormusji Gharda vs Mehervan Rustom Irani (13 May 2009) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 339, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Definition 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.' Court analyzed the essential ingredients of this provision. Another 4 judgments on this section are set out below, 2 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2009 to 2025.
Is Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Bailable, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Is Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita cognizable?
Cognizable. "Cognizable" means a police officer may arrest without warrant; "non-cognizable" that they may not. An offence under this section is triable by Any Magistrate.
How do I find court cases under Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BNS 126, section 126 BNS, section 126 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 126(2) and bns 126 in ipc. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 5 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Keki Hormusji Gharda vs Mehervan Rustom Irani (13 May 2009).
What should I read with Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
It carries forward IPC 339 (Wrongful restraint), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 126, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 2. Definitions2199 words
- 356. Defamation1543 words
- 335. Making a false document1318 words
- 101. Murder1177 words
- 303. Theft1104 words
- 3. General explanations858 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.