Arresting a person under Section 129 BNSS without sufficient grounds is impermissible, focusing instead on the execution of personal bonds for good behavior, with emphasis on the need for inquiries into the petitioner’s solvency.

ORDER :

R.K. PATTANAIK, J.

1. Heard Mr. Mahapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the State.

2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 10^th October, 2025 passed in connection with CMC Case No.880 of 2025 by the learned Additional DCP-Cum-Executive Magistrate, Bhubaneswar and further to direct his release on execution of PR Bond necessary in the interest of justice.

3. Mr. Mahapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to a copy of the application as at Annexure-2 with the submission that the petitioner belongs to a poor family residing in a thatched house over a Government land and his parents and relatives do not have any landed property either, hence, therefore, he is unable to furnish the solvent surety as has been directed by the learned court below. The further submission is that the petitioner is in custody on and from 13^th June, 2025 and therefore, he should be directed to go on bail. The contention is that any such action under Section 129 BNSS is a preventive measure and not punitive in nature and therefore, the petitioner, who has remained in custody since the month of June, 2025, should be directed to be immediately released accepting PR Bond from him in the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the state submits that there is no error or any illegality committed by the learned court below, since as per the impugned order at Annexure-1, the petitioner has only been directed to execute a bond for an amount of Rs.10,000/- and to furnish two solvent sureties for the like amount and to show good behaviour for a period of two months apparently for having criminal antecedents.

5. In course of hearing, Mr. Mahapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was arrested in connection with the proceeding under Section 129 BNSS, which is impermissible under law and while advancing such an argument, cites the decision of this Court in Abdul Naim Vs. State of Orissa, 2000 Criminal Journal 1888. The further submission is that no ground is stated to detain the petitioner, hence, therefore, he should have been discharged but instead the application at Annexure-2 having been filed, it was not entertained by the learned court below leading to the passing of the impugned order at Annexure-1 and in that connection Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of this Court in CRLREV No.471 of 1982 decided on 20^th March, 1985. The contention is that the petitioner could not have been arrested and kept behind the bar with a proceeding under Section 129 BNSS initiated and that apart, considering the fact that he is not solvent and unable to manage execution of a bond with sureties, it was unjustified on the part of the learned court below to direct detention in passing the impugned order dated 10^th October, 2025 i.e. Annexure-1.

6. Section 129 BNSS stipulates that an Executive Magistrate upon receiving information about any person residing within his local jurisdiction, who is having antecedents and a habitual offender and has attempted to commit or abate commission of any such offences mentioned therein or also a desperate offender dangerous to be at large without security and hazardous to the community may require him to execute a bail bond for his good behavior for such period not exceeding three year. On a reading of the above provision, it is made to understand that upon a satisfaction reached at considering the history of a person involved in criminal cases, an Executive Magistrate shall have the powers to direct him to execute a bond for a period specified therein.

7. In the case at han