Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. DIAS, J
MUNEER T K – Appellant
Versus
THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, KANHANGAD – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. failure to include substance of information affects the validity of preventive measures. (Para 2 , 5) |
| 2. judicial precedent supports the necessity for clear communication of grounds for preventive orders. (Para 4 , 6 , 8) |
| 3. the court directs reconsideration of the quashed order based on procedural compliance. (Para 7 , 9) |
ORDER
The petitioner is the counter petitioner in M.C.No.65/2025 pending before the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kanhangad.
2. The petitioner has been served with Annexure-AI preliminary order calling upon him to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to keep peace for a period of one year as contemplated under Section 126 read with Section 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (‘ BNSS ’, in short). The petitioner contends that Annexure-AI order is unsustainable in law because the Sub Divisional Magistrate has not set forth the substance of the information in the said order, which is mandatory under read with of the , and the law laid down by this Court in Moidu vs. State of Kerala ( 1982 KHC 139 ). Therefore, Annexure-AI order may be quas
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
