Detailed substantiation of allegations is mandatory for issuing preventive orders under BNSS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

MONDAY, THE 12^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 22ND POUSHA, 1947

CRL.MC NO. 157 OF 2026

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN MC NO.233 OF 2025 OF

SUB DVL.MAGISTRATE,PALA

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

TOMY THOMAS

AGED 54 YEARS

KUTTIYANKAL HOUSE, KADAPPATTOOR P.O., PALA, KOTTAYAM

DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 686574

BY ADVS.

SRI.JAI GEORGE

SMT.DAISY A.PHILIPOSE

SHRI.DARSHAN A.D.

SMT.DEBORAH THAMBI

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT AND STATE :

1 STATE OF KERALA

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF

KERALA, ERNAKULAM PIN, PIN - 682031

2 SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, PALA.

REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION, PALA

P.O., KOTTAYAM., PIN - 686575

3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER

PALA POLICE STATION, PALA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,

PIN - 686575

PP SRI M P PRASANTH

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

12.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

C.S.DIAS, J.

---------------------------------------

CRL.MC NO. 157 OF 2026 -----------------------------------------

Dated this the 12^th day of January, 2026

ORDER

The petitioner is the counter petitioner in M.C.No.233/2025 pending before the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pala.

2. The petitioner stated that he has been served with Annexure-A1 preliminary order passed under Section 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (‘ BNSS ’, in short), directing him to appear before the Court and show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond for Rs.75,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to keep peace for a period of one year as contemplated under of the .

3. The petitioner contends that Annexure-A1 preliminary 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 Section 126 read with Section 130 of the BNSS , and the law laid down by this Court inMoidu vs. State of Kerala ( 1982 KHC 139 ). Therefore, Annexure-A1 preliminary order may be quashed.

4. Heard; Sri.Jai George, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.M.P. Prasanth, the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. In the above context, it is necessary to refer to Sections 126 and 130 of the BNSS , which corresponds to the erstwhile Sections 107 and 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,which reads as follows:

126. (1) When an Executive Magistrate receives information that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility and is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he may, in the manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond or bail bond for keeping the peace for such period, not exceeding one year, as the Magistrate thinks fit.

(2) Proceedings under this section may be taken before any Executive Magistrate when either the place where the breach of the peace or disturbance is apprehended is within his local jurisdiction or there is within such jurisdiction a person who is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act as aforesaid beyond such jurisdiction.

130. When a Magistrate acting under section 126, section 127, section 128 or section 129, deems it necessary to require any person to show cause under such section, he shall make an order in writing, setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond to be executed, the term for which it is to be in force and the number of sureties, after considering the sufficiency and fitness of sureties”.

6. The above provisions explicitly postulates that the Executive Magistrate, on receiving information that any person is likely to commit a breach of peace, disturb the public tranquility or does any wrongful act, and that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against him, the Executiv