Section 56

This provision continues a long-standing principle in Indian criminal procedure (earlier found in Section 55A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) that custody does not mean the state can neglect a person's wellbeing. It reflects constitutional guarantees under Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) as interpreted by courts to include the right to live with dignity, even while under arrest. The rule places a positive obligation on custodians—police officers, jail authorities, or anyone holding an accused—to prevent harm, ensure medical attention, and avoid custodial abuse or negligence.

Indian courts, especially the Supreme Court in cases like D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), have held that custodial violence and neglect violate Article 21, and have laid down guidelines for the treatment of arrested persons, including medical examination and humane treatment. While Section 56 of the BNSS itself is new and has not yet been interpreted by courts, it codifies this judicially recognized duty of care that authorities owe to those in custody.

• Myth: Once someone is arrested, the police aren't responsible for their health anymore.
  Fact: The law explicitly makes custodians responsible for the health and safety of the accused while in their custody.
• Myth: This rule only applies to jails, not police lock-ups.
  Fact: The duty applies to 'the person having custody of an accused,' which can include police officers or other authorities, not just prison staff.