Wrongfully concealing or keeping in confinement, kidnapped or abducted person
Section 142 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with wrongfully concealing or keeping in confinement, kidnapped or abducted person. 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 concea The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
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.
Section 142, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 368 Wrongfully concealing or keeping in confinement, kidnapped or abducted person Text carried over almost unchanged 100%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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 concealing or keeping in confinement, kidnapped or abducted person. | Punishment for kidnapping or abduction. | Cognizable. | Non-bailable. | Court by which the kidnapping or abduction is triable. |
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.
-
Sat Prakash vs State of Haryana
Decided under Indian Penal Code 368, 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: Wrongful concealment of kidnapped person. Co-accused Hari Chand and Sarla were acquitted of this charge; the Supreme Court did not specifically address this in the judgment.
-
Gabbu vs State of M. P
Decided under Indian Penal Code 368, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
To constitute an offense under Section 366 IPC, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt not merely that the woman was abducted, but that she was abducted by inducement through deceitful means or by force with the specific intent that she may be seduced to illicit intercourse or compelled to marry, or knowing it to be likely that such consequences would follow. Mere abduction without proof of the requisite criminal intent regarding seduction or marriage does not constitute an offense under Section 366 IPC. Conviction based on weak or contradictory evidence creating reasonable doubt must be set aside.
On this section: Co-accused Sardar was charged under this section (wrongful confinement), but was acquitted. The section relates to unlawful detention or confinement.
-
Shashidhar Purandhar Hegde vs State of Karnataka
Decided under Indian Penal Code 368, 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: Cited in charge sheet but ultimately appellants acquitted of this section by both trial court and upheld by Supreme Court. Related to wrongful confinement.
-
Gul Singh @ Guliya vs State of M. P.
Decided under Indian Penal Code 368, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A child witness aged 14-16 years can provide credible and reliable testimony forming the basis for criminal conviction if: (a) the witness demonstrates understanding of questions and ability to give rational answers; (b) the witness is not tutored or coached; (c) the child's demeanor is consistent with that of any competent witness; and (d) while corroboration from other dependable evidence is desirable as a matter of judicial prudence, it is not mandatory for conviction. The reliability of child witness evidence depends on the circumstances of each case and must be assessed individually. In cases of violent crime with multiple eyewitnesses including injured family members, the absence of one accused's name in the original FIR does not vitiate identification if subsequent statements of other witnesses immediately name all accused and their identifications are corroborated by consistent testimony and medical evidence.
On this section: Wrongful concealment or confinement - Applied in conjunction with kidnapping for keeping Parubai in concealment after abduction
-
Riya vs State of U.p.
Decided under Indian Penal Code 368, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The date of birth as recorded in the High School Certificate, unless and until rebutted by the issuing authority, holds good in the eye of law and constitutes conclusive proof for determining the victim's age in criminal proceedings. When a victim's age is material to the constitution of an offence (such as kidnapping under Section 363 IPC), the documentary evidence of date of birth from official records cannot be set aside merely on the basis of the accused's assertion or the victim's subsequent marriage. The burden lies on the party challenging the recorded date of birth to produce cogent and conclusive proof of rebuttal.
On this section: Wrongfully concealing or keeping in confinement a person knowing to have been kidnapped or abducted - charged in the FIR
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 142
What have the courts held on Section 142 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Sat Prakash vs State of Haryana (09 Dec 2015) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 368, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Wrongful concealment of kidnapped person. Co-accused Hari Chand and Sarla were acquitted of this charge; the Supreme Court did not specifically address this in the judgment. Another 4 judgments on this section are set out below, 4 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2004 to 2020.
Is Section 142 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Non-bailable, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Is Section 142 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 Court by which the kidnapping or abduction is triable.
How do I find court cases under Section 142 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 142, section 142 BNS, section 142 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 142 2. 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 Sat Prakash vs State of Haryana (09 Dec 2015).
What should I read with Section 142 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
It carries forward IPC 368 (Wrongfully concealing or keeping in confinement, kidnapped or abducted person), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 142 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 142 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 142, 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.