Handcuffing (s.43(3) BNSS) — BNSS (Criminal Law II) Notes

Handcuffing (s.43(3) BNSS)

For decades handcuffing an under-trial was left to the whim of the escorting constable — until Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration (1980) held that routine handcuffing is an affront to human dignity under Art. 21. The BNSS has now, for the first time, put the restriction into the statute itself.

Section 43(3) BNSS permits a police officer to use handcuffs while making an arrest or producing an accused before court only for an enumerated class of grave offenders — a habitual or repeat offender who escaped from custody, or a person accused of organised crime, terrorism, drug offences, illegal possession of arms, murder, rape, acid attack, counterfeiting, or offences against the State, having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence.

What it does. It makes handcuffing an exception, justified by the offender’s dangerousness, not the routine.
Why. To reconcile custodial security with the arrestee’s dignity and presumption of innocence (Art. 21).
Who decides. The arresting/escorting officer, but subject to judicial scrutiny; unjustified handcuffing remains illegal.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — routine handcuffing

Facts. A first-time accused in a simple cheating case is paraded in handcuffs.

Rule. Section 43(3) restricts handcuffing to enumerated grave/dangerous offenders; cheating is not in the list.

Apply. Handcuffing this accused is unjustified and violates his dignity under Art. 21.

Conclusion. The handcuffing is illegal; restraint must match the risk the offender poses.

Section 43(3) BNSS: “The police officer may, keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offence, use handcuff while making the arrest of a person who is a habitual or repeat offender, or who escaped from custody, or who has committed offence of organised crime, terrorist act, drug related crime… murder, rape, acid attack, counterfeiting of coins and currency-notes… or offences against the State.”

In Simple Terms: Handcuffs may be used only on serious, dangerous or habitual offenders — never as a routine on ordinary accused persons.

flowchart TD
    ROOT["Handcuffing s.43(3)"]:::root
    ROOT --> A["Allowed: habitual/escaped offender;<br/>terrorism, organised crime, murder, rape,<br/>drugs, arms, acid attack, offences v. State"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> B["Not allowed: ordinary first-time accused<br/>(dignity, Art. 21)"]:::sidebox
    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,stroke-width:1px,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    classDef sidebox fill:#FDE7C9,stroke:#B45309,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

Case Laws

Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration (1980) — routine handcuffing violates Art. 21; it is permissible only where clearly necessary and justified.
Citizens for Democracy v. State of Assam (1995) — handcuffing without recorded reasons and judicial sanction is unconstitutional.

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All BNSS (Criminal Law II) topics