BACK TO SECTIONSAIR 1980 SC 1579
BailableCognizable: Non-Cognizable (basic); Cognizable (aggravated)Any Magistrate
Reform Highlights
1
Consolidated and renumbered from IPC 340–342 to BNS 95.
2
Graduated punishment for aggravated forms preserved.
3
Read with Domestic Violence Act and anti-bonded labour laws for comprehensive protection.
THE STATUTE
The Clause
Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said 'wrongfully to confine' that person.
Legal Commentary
Section 95 criminalises wrongful confinement — unlawfully restricting a person's movement so that they cannot leave a defined space or area. It is one level up from wrongful restraint: while restraint prevents movement in a particular direction, confinement prevents leaving an entire space. Locking someone in a room, detaining them in a car, confining a domestic worker and refusing to let them leave, holding a patient in a hospital against their will — all constitute wrongful confinement. The section is frequently invoked in domestic violence cases, wrongful detention by private parties, and illegal detention in workplaces. Several aggravated forms attract higher punishment: confinement for 3 or more days, confinement to extort a confession, confinement in secret, and confinement by a public servant to intimidate. Each aggravated form has a graduated sentence reflecting the increasing severity of deprivation of liberty. The right to personal liberty under Article 21 is the constitutional backdrop — any deprivation by a private party without lawful authority is both a constitutional violation and a criminal offence.
Landmark Precedents
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1980)
RELEVANCE
Discussed wrongful confinement in the context of prisoner rights — Article 21's guarantee of liberty is violated by any detention without lawful authority, operationalised through BNS 95.
Case Simulations
"A factory owner who locks migrant workers in a dormitory at night — wrongful confinement with potential trafficking liability."
"A husband who locks his wife in the house to prevent her from going to work — wrongful confinement, additionally actionable under the Domestic Violence Act."
"A nightclub bouncer who falsely detains a patron for hours in a back room without any offence — wrongful confinement."
Expert Insights
Yes. Locking a person in a premises against their will without lawful authority is wrongful confinement under BNS 95, regardless of the relationship between the parties.
No. Detaining a patient to extract payment is wrongful confinement. The hospital may pursue civil remedies but cannot lawfully prevent the patient from leaving.