Assault or criminal force in attempt to wrongfully confine a person
Section 135 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with assault or criminal force in attempt to wrongfully confine a person. Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person, in attempting wrongfully to confine that 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. The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person, in attempting wrongfully to confine that 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.
Section 135, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 357 Assault or criminal force in attempt wrongfully to confine a person Text carried over almost unchanged 98%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Assault or use of criminal force in attempt wrongfully to confine a person. | Imprisonment for 1 year, 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.
-
State of M. P vs Mehtaab
Decided under Indian Penal Code 357, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a court convicts an accused for an offence involving death by negligence, the court has a mandatory duty to award an appropriate sentence that balances punishment with victim compensation. Mechanical reduction of sentences to the period already undergone, without consideration of the victim's plight and the need for compensation, is impermissible. Where an accused's resources are limited, the state must step in under Section 357-A IPC to provide interim and final compensation to victims or their heirs. The adequacy of punishment must be assessed in the context of victim rehabilitation and societal deterrence, not merely the accused's mitigation.
On this section: State compensation for crime victims. The Court invoked Section 357-A to direct the State of Madhya Pradesh to provide interim compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs to the heirs of the deceased, with a direction to pay Rs. 5 lakhs if the accused fails to pay the compensation ordered by the court. The section was interpreted to impose a mandatory duty on courts to consider state compensation when the victim is in need of financial relief and the accused has limited resources.
-
Rajender Singh vs State of Haryana
Decided under Indian Penal Code 357, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The mandatory requirement under Section 275(4) Cr.P.C. that witness depositions in warrant cases must be signed by the Magistrate is not a curable irregularity but a fatal defect that renders the evidence inadmissible and vitiates the entire trial. Additionally, the right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses is a fundamental component of the right to fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, and denial of this right prejudices the accused and violates principles of natural justice. When an Investigating Officer fails to appear for cross-examination, the evidence collected by that officer remains unproved and cannot be relied upon for conviction.
On this section: Charge of criminal intimidation; conviction set aside due to procedural defects
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.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SC/ST (POA) Act' for short) in Crime No.120/2025 of Hanur Police Station, on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagara, for the offences punishable under Sections 105, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, Sections 135 of Indian Electricity Act (Amend), 2003 and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, Amendment 2015, on the basis of the first information lodged by informant - Suresha. 2. Heard Sri. Balaraj.V.R., learned Counsel for the appellant and Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned ASPP for the …
Questions about Section 135
What have the courts held on Section 135 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
State of M. P vs Mehtaab (13 Feb 2015) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 357, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: State compensation for crime victims. The Court invoked Section 357-A to direct the State of Madhya Pradesh to provide interim compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs to the heirs of the deceased, with a direction to pay Rs. 5 lakhs if the accused fails to pay the compensation ordered by the court. The section was interpreted to impose a mandatory duty on courts to consider state compensation when the victim is in need of financial relief and the accused has limited resources. Another 1 judgment on this section is set out below, 1 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2015 to 2025.
Is Section 135 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Bailable, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Is Section 135 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 135 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 135, section 135 BNS, section 135 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 135 3 in hindi and bns 135 2 in hindi. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 2 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with State of M. P vs Mehtaab (13 Feb 2015).
What should I read with Section 135 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
It carries forward IPC 357 (Assault or criminal force in attempt wrongfully to confine a person), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 135 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 135 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 135, 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 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.