Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Bom) 152

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J.
Shri. Chandan Patekar, Son of Dharma Patekar – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Goa, Through Public Prosecutor - Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 50 of 2026 With Criminal Writ Petition No. 51 of 2026 With Criminal Writ Petition No. 52 of 2026 With Criminal Writ Petition No. 53 of 2026, Criminal Writ Petition No. 54 of 2026, Criminal Writ Petition No. 56 of 2026
Decided On : 07-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Athnain Naik
For the Respondent: Mr. Pravin Faldessai, APP

Executive Magistrate must pass written order under Section 130 BNSS setting forth substance of information before issuing show cause under Section 126; mechanical notices insufficient and confer no jurisdiction. (24 words)

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 126 and 130 - Executive Magistrate, upon receiving information of person likely to commit breach of peace, disturb public tranquility or do wrongful act occasioning breach, and forming opinion of sufficient ground for proceeding, must pass order in writing under Section 130 setting forth substance of information received, amount of bond, term for which in force, number of sureties before issuing show cause notice under Section 126 requiring execution of bond. Such order sine qua non for assuming jurisdiction; cannot be mechanical, cyclostyled or notice under Section 126 construed as order under Section 130. Strict compliance with statutory procedure mandatory as proceedings affect personal liberty; if statute prescribes manner, to be done only in that manner. Notices and proceedings quashed for non-compliance; guidelines directed to Magistrates for future compliance. (Paras 4, 6, 17-23)

(B) Sections 131 and 133 - Order under Section 130 to be read or explained to person if present, or accompany summons/warrant; basis for inquiry into truth of information. (Paras 20-21)

Facts of the case:
Multiple writ petitions challenging show cause notices issued by Executive Magistrates under Section 126 without prior written order under Section 130; notices identical in content, mechanical, merely stating satisfaction without reflecting substance of information or application of mind.

Findings of Court:
Notices not in conformity with Sections 126 read with 130; liable to be quashed along with consequent proceedings.

Issues: Whether Executive Magistrate has jurisdiction under Section 126 absent order under Section 130 recording substance of information and opinion on sufficient grounds; validity of treating mechanical notices as such orders.

Ratio Decidendi: Preliminary order under Section 130 mandatory prerequisite reflecting Magistrate's own opinion and substance of information with application of judicial mind; mechanical or cyclostyled orders invalid; proceedings under Chapter IX preventive in nature requiring strict statutory compliance.

Result: Writ petitions allowed; impugned notices and proceedings quashed and set aside.

Table of Content
1. petitions challenge s126 notices lacking s130 order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. mandatory written order recording information substance required. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. precedents prohibit mechanical preventive orders. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. guidelines needed despite urgency claims. (Para 13 , 14)
5. issue settled; cyclostyled notices invalid. (Para 15 , 16)
6. s130 order sine qua non for s126 jurisdiction. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
7. non-conforming notices and proceedings quashed. (Para 24 , 25)
8. petitions allowed without costs. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)

JUDGMENT :

AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J.

1. Heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners.

2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith at the request and by consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties. Mr. Bhobe, the Learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Faldessai, on behalf of the State, waive service.

3. All the above captioned Petitions raise a common issue pertaining to the requirements of exercising powers under Chapter IX of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (the BNSS) by the Executive Magistrate. In particular, the issues are raised in respect of the powers conferred on the Executive Magistrate under Section 126, read with Section 130 of the BNSS. All the Petitioners have raised a common issue; therefore, the Petitions are heard together.

4. In all the Petitions, the Deputy Collector, SDO and SDM (the Magistrate) of the respective jurisdictions have issued show cause notices under Section 126 of the BNSS. In one matter [Criminal Writ Petition No. 56 of 2026], the notice issued by the Learned Magistrate mentions that it is a notice under Section 130 of the BNSS. In effect, the Learned Magistrate has invoked the power under Section 126 of the BNSS and called upon the Petitioners to show cause as to why the Petitioners should not be ordered to execute a bond or bail bond, as more particularly mentioned in the respective notices sent to the Petitioners.

5. The Petitioners are seeking the relief to quash and set aside the notices issued by the Learned Magistrate and, consequently, set aside the proceedings initiated by the Learned Magistrate under Section 126 of the BNSS. The main ground in all the above Petitions is that the Learned Magistrate has not passed an order under Section 130 of the BNSS and therefore, the Learned Magistrate does not have jurisdiction under Section 126 of the BNSS to proceed with the proceedings.

6. It is further submitted on behalf of the Petitioners that if the Learned Magistrate failed to record the opinion that there is sufficient ground to initiate proceedings under Section 126 of the BNSS, then it is mandatory that the Learned Magistrate ought to pass an order in writing, in which the Magistrate ought to set forth the substance of the information received. The opinion of the Learned Magistrate has to be recorded in the order to be passed under section 130 of the BNSS. It is submitted that the proceedings under Section 126 of the BNSS cannot be initiated by issuing mechanical orders by merely stating that the Learned Magistrate is satisfied about the sufficient ground. The requirement of the section is that the sufficiency of the ground ought to be reflected in the order, which order ought to be passed by the Learned Magistrate under Section 130 of the BNSS.

7. All the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners relied upon the following judgments passed by this Court:-

(i) Jitendra R. Deshprabhu & Others Vs. Executive Magistrate & Another, (1992) 1 Bom CR 233;

(ii) Rajesh s/o Suryabhan Nayak Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others, (2006) 5 Mah LJ 243 and

(iii) Tukaram Bharat Parab & Others Vs. State & Others, Criminal Writ Petition No. 4 of 2021 dated 15.02.2021.

8. By relying upon the above judgments, the Learned Counsel appearing for all the Petitioners submitted that the issue raised in the present Petitions is covered by these judgments and therefore, the Petitioners are entitled to get the relief in the p