Kidnapping
Section 137 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with kidnapping. Kidnapping is of two kinds: kidnapping from India, and kidnapping from lawful guardianship— (a) whoever conveys any person beyond the limits of India without the consent of that person, or of some person legally authorised to consent on behalf of that person, is said to kidnap that person from India; The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) Kidnapping is of two kinds: kidnapping from India, and kidnapping from lawful guardianship—
(a) whoever conveys any person beyond the limits of India without the consent of that person, or of some person legally authorised to consent on behalf of that person, is said to kidnap that person from India;
(b) whoever takes or entices any child or any person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such child or person of unsound mind, without the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such child or person from lawful guardianship.
Explanation.—The words “lawful guardian” in this clause include any person lawfully entrusted with the care or custody of such child or other person.
Exception.—This clause does not extend to the act of any person who in good faith believes himself to be the father of an illegitimate child, or who in good faith believes himself to be entitled to the lawful custody of such child, unless such act is committed for an immoral or unlawful purpose.
(2) Whoever kidnaps any person from India or from lawful guardianship shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 137, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 359 Kidnapping Text carried over almost unchanged 90%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kidnapping. | Imprisonment for 7 years and fine. | Cognizable. | Bailable. | Magistrate of the first class. |
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.
-
Naveen @ Ajay vs The State of Madhya Pradesh
Decided under Indian Penal Code 363, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A criminal trial for serious offences including rape and murder cannot be conducted in a hasty manner over 15 days without providing adequate time to the legal aid counsel to prepare the defence. The principle of fair trial, which is a fundamental right under the Constitution, requires that the accused be afforded a real and meaningful opportunity to defend himself through competent counsel with sufficient preparation time. The trial court has a duty to ensure compliance with fair trial principles by granting adequate time to defence counsel, which should normally be a minimum of 7 days but may be more depending on circumstances. Forensic evidence including DNA reports must be properly proved through examination of expert witnesses who prepared the reports, and the accused must be given opportunity to cross-examine such experts. A trial conducted in violation of these principles is void and the conviction and sentence must be set aside with the matter remitted for de novo trial.
On this section: Sections under which appellant was convicted for kidnapping, rape, and murder of minor child; Court did not disturb these substantive provisions but set aside conviction due to procedural violations
-
Mohd. Imran Khan vs State(govt. of National Cap. Ter. of Delhi)
Decided under Indian Penal Code 363, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A prosecutrix's testimony in a rape case, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable, requires no corroboration and can sustain a conviction. A woman who is the victim of sexual assault stands at a higher pedestal than an injured witness as she suffers from emotional injury. Her evidence must be appreciated in the background of the entire case with heightened sensitivity. Threats and coercion negate any notion of consent, and a minor cannot legally consent to sexual intercourse regardless of her apparent willingness or voluntary accompaniment. The court must not allow infirmities in investigation to undermine the credibility of victim testimony when the evidence is otherwise reliable.
On this section: Punishment for kidnapping - Initial charge registered against the appellants based on the complaint.
-
Mohd. Imran Khan vs State(govt. of National Cap. Ter. of Delhi)
Decided under Indian Penal Code 363, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The testimony of a prosecutrix in a rape case, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable, does not require corroboration from other witnesses or evidence to secure conviction; the court may convict the accused on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if satisfied of its truthfulness. A woman in Indian society would not falsely accuse someone of rape knowing the severe social consequences and stigma she would face throughout her life. Therefore, her credible testimony must be evaluated with appropriate sensitivity to the trauma of rape, and the court should have no hesitation in accepting her evidence when it bears marks of reliability. The presence of knife threats, coercion, and the minor age of the victim are material factors negating the effect of the victim's voluntary accompanying of the accused, and do not indicate consent.
On this section: Punishment for kidnapping: Used as basis for initial registration of case based on father's complaint of missing daughter.
-
Murugan @ Settu vs State of Tamil Nadu
Decided under Indian Penal Code 363, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Documentary evidence of age, specifically birth certificates issued by municipal authorities under the Registration of Birth and Deaths Act, 1969, and corroborating entries in school registers made ante litem motam (before the dispute arose), are reliable and trustworthy evidence of a child's age in criminal proceedings. When such documentary evidence is supported by witness testimony, medical opinion based on radiological tests regarding apparent age cannot override the conclusive documentary proof. The absence of the child's name in the birth certificate does not cast doubt on its authenticity, as it is common knowledge that municipal birth certificates are registered immediately after birth before the child is named. Accordingly, in cases of sexual assault of minors, the court should primarily rely on such documentary evidence to determine the child's age, rather than medical opinions or statements made by the child herself.
On this section: Applied to convict accomplices Ramalingam and Siva. High Court modified the conviction from Sections 366 r/w 109 to Section 363 r/w 109 for the accomplices, indicating simple wrongful confinement rather than kidnapping with specific intent.
-
Baij Nath Sah vs State of Bihar
Decided under Indian Penal Code 363, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A statement recorded by a Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not substantive evidence and cannot form the sole basis for conviction. Moreover, a person cannot be convicted of kidnapping or abduction merely because the victim was brought to his home after the kidnapping had already been effected by other accused persons. There must be independent evidence showing his involvement in the actual kidnapping or the events preceding it to establish criminal liability for such offences.
On this section: Defines punishment for punishment for wrongful abduction; High Court altered conviction from Section 366-A to Section 363
-
State of Punjab vs Hari Singh
Decided under Indian Penal Code 363, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where an accused is charged with possession of narcotic articles under Section 15 of the NDPS Act, conscious possession - meaning awareness of the nature of the article coupled with a deliberate or intended state of mind - is an essential legal requirement. In the absence of questioning the accused under Section 313 CrPC regarding this vital element of the prosecution case, the trial suffers from a serious procedural infirmity that cannot be cured by circumstantial evidence of physical possession alone, and the conviction must be set aside as violating the fundamental principles of natural justice and fair trial.
On this section: Court referenced this section in discussing what constitutes warrant versus summons cases for purposes of Section 313 CrPC.
-
Ranjit Singh @ Jita vs State of Punjab
Decided under Indian Penal Code 363, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A confessional statement recorded after merely 20-30 minutes of cooling-off time to an accused held in police custody for 18-20 days cannot be considered a valid and safe basis for conviction. Conviction cannot be maintained solely on testimony of police officials when independent evidence is absent, contradictory, or hostile. The principle from Sarwan Singh case requiring at least 24 hours cooling-off period (and longer if coercion is suspected) must be strictly followed to ensure confessions are genuinely voluntary and free from police influence. The cooling-off period must be a meaningful exercise, not a mechanical formality.
On this section: Punishment for kidnapping - read with Section 149 in context of alleged incident
-
Sat Prakash vs State of Haryana
Decided under Indian Penal Code 363, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The clear and unequivocal statement by a minor victim in a contemporaneous suicide note that she left her home of her own free will, combined with absence of prosecution evidence of inducement or force, is sufficient to negate the presumption of kidnapping under Section 363 IPC. Furthermore, Section 366-A IPC, which penalizes procuration of a minor girl with intent that she be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse 'with another person', cannot apply to allegations of sexual conduct between the minor and the person accused of procuring her, as the statutory language explicitly requires a third person to be involved.
On this section: Kidnapping from lawful guardianship. Court held that kidnapping requires evidence of inducement or force; mere presence of girl in accused's residence without evidence of enticement is insufficient. The girl's clear statement in suicide note that she left of her own free will negated the kidnapping charge.
-
Shashidhar Purandhar Hegde vs State of Karnataka
Decided under Indian Penal Code 363, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an appellate court reviews an acquittal order, it should interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons - specifically when the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and relevant and convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated or overlooked. Where a trial court has not properly considered the intrinsic and probative value of credible evidence and has relied on surmises, conjectures, and improbabilities rather than analyzing the substantive merits of the evidence, the appellate court is justified in interfering. Minor and trivial discrepancies in witness statements, which do not amount to contradictions affecting credibility, do not warrant rejection of testimony, particularly when the core evidence from the victim and corroborating witnesses remains unshaken on cross-examination. The presence of minor inconsistencies in collateral matters does not undermine the fundamental reliability of witness testimony when the central facts of the case are established.
On this section: Applied to establish the crime of kidnapping - taking or enticing a person with intent to confine. Court found appellants guilty of this offense as they deceived and transported minor without parental permission with intent to hold him for ransom.
-
Parveen Kumar Sareen vs The State of Punjab
Decided under Indian Penal Code 363, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Supreme Court has the supervisory power and responsibility to direct subordinate courts to dispose of long-pending criminal cases within a specified timeframe when inordinate delay is evident, balancing the rights of the accused to a speedy trial with the need for proper adjudication of serious criminal charges by the trial court.
On this section: Serious charges including kidnapping, abduction, murder, concealment of evidence, forgery, and criminal conspiracy in FIR No. 25/2003
-
State of Rajasthan vs Babu Meena
Decided under Indian Penal Code 363, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if it is found to be wholly reliable and worthy of credence without requiring corroboration, such conviction is unsafe when the prosecutrix's testimony is wholly unreliable, is marred by material contradictions that remain unexplained, and is contradicted or unsupported by medical, forensic, and eyewitness evidence. In such circumstances, acquittal based on reasonable doubt is the only proper course.
On this section: Punishment for kidnapping - Alleged kidnapping of the victim was a charge brought against the accused
-
Salamat Ansari v. State of U.P.
Decided under Indian Penal Code 363, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Two majors who choose to live together / marry, including after conversion, are protected by Article 21. FIR under IPC 363/366 and POCSO 7/8 quashed where the woman was a major (High School certificate) and living voluntarily with her partner. Courts look at them as two adults, not as Hindu and Muslim. Distinguishes contrary single-judge conversion-for-marriage cases (Noor Jahan / Priyanshi).
On this section: Successor copy of IPC 363 kidnapping holding.
-
Angrez Chand vs Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir Through Station House Officer Police Station Thathri District Doda
Decided under Indian Penal Code 363, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the stage of framing charges, a trial court must conduct a limited prima facie assessment of whether the material on record raises strong suspicion of the accused's involvement in the alleged offence, without going into the probative value of evidence or making findings on matters that require opportunity for proper investigation or identification. A finding that a witness has not identified the accused cannot be made at the charge framing stage without first providing the witness an opportunity to identify through proper procedure such as a Test Identification Parade. The presence of prima facie material in the FIR and statements of parties is sufficient to frame charges, even if medical evidence does not support certain specific offences.
On this section: Kidnapping - wrongfully compounding or enticing a minor out of lawful guardianship with criminal intent. Court found sufficient prima facie material to frame charge despite trial court's discharge.
-
Sathish vs The State of Tamil Nadu
Decided under Indian Penal Code 363, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused in a POCSO Act case has made out arguable points in his appeal, and the appeal cannot be taken up for final hearing in the near future, the High Court may suspend the substantive sentence of imprisonment pending disposal of the appeal, provided the accused is enlarged on bail with appropriate conditions to ensure his presence and compliance with court orders.
On this section: Petitioner was convicted for kidnapping the victim girl. Section 361 defines kidnapping, and Section 363 prescribes punishment for kidnapping. The court applied these sections to establish the offense of kidnapping.
-
The State of Maharashtra vs Amol Nanasaheb Jogdanda
Decided under Indian Penal Code 363, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the primary witness (complainant) in a criminal case admits to an out-of-court settlement with the accused and recants the allegations, and no other credible corroborating evidence is presented by the prosecution, the accused persons must be acquitted as the burden of proof on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt has not been discharged. The court cannot convict based on mere allegations when the complainant himself contradicts the complaint and admits to amicable resolution of the dispute.
On this section: Punishment for kidnapping - applied to determine criminal liability for unlawful confinement
-
Farukh vs State of Haryana
Decided under Indian Penal Code 363, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a trial court has properly considered the victim's statement attributing a specific role to an accused in a child sexual abuse case, combined with the investigating agency's findings placing the accused in the investigation report, the High Court will not interfere with the trial court's order summoning the accused, as the trial court has exercised its discretion appropriately based on available evidence.
On this section: Offence of kidnapping - charge against the petitioner for allegedly kidnapping the minor victim
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.
-
… Altogether five cases in which the detenu is involved were considered by the jurisdictional authority for passing the impugned order. Out of the said five cases, the last case registered against the detenu is Crime No. 743/2024 of Peechi Police Station alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 310(2), 137(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita ( for short 'B.N.S.'). 3. We heard Sri. M.H. Hanis, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K.A. Anas, the learned Government Pleader. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Ext.P1 order is illegal, arbitrary and …
Questions about Section 137
What have the courts held on Section 137 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Naveen @ Ajay vs The State of Madhya Pradesh (19 Oct 2023) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 363, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Sections under which appellant was convicted for kidnapping, rape, and murder of minor child; Court did not disturb these substantive provisions but set aside conviction due to procedural violations. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 11 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2002 to 2025.
Is Section 137 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Bailable, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Is Section 137 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 Magistrate of the first class.
How do I find court cases under Section 137 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 137, section 137 BNS, section 137 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 137(2) and bns 137(2) bailable or non bailable. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Naveen @ Ajay vs The State of Madhya Pradesh (19 Oct 2023).
What should I read with Section 137 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
It carries forward IPC 359 (Kidnapping), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 137 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 137 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 137, 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.