SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 827

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S.DIAS, J
SURENDRAKUMAR. P.K – Appellant
Versus
SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KAKKUR POLICE STATION – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 249 OF 2026 | CRIME NO.792/2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.LISY T.SKARIA, SMT.SHYNI PELEXY
For the Respondents: SMT. SREEJA V.

The absence of substance in a magistrate's order under Section 130 of BNSS renders it void, necessitating detailed grounds for action.

Headnote:In this case, the petitioner challenged an order under Section 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, citing procedural deficiencies related to the requirement of substantiating the grounds for the order. The court referred to Sections 126 and 130 of the BNSS, noting that the Executive Magistrate must detail the substance of information before issuing a show cause notice. The court drew on precedents emphasizing the necessity of such detail, ultimately ruling to set aside the impugned order for lack of sufficient substantiation.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

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

CRL.MC NO. 249 OF 2026

CRIME NO.792/2024 OF Kakkur Police Station, Kozhikode

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 31.12.2025 IN MC NO.1145

OF 2025 OF SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE,KOZHIKODE

PETITIONER/RESPONDENT :

SURENDRAKUMAR. P.K

AGED 59 YEARS

S/O GOPALAN P.K, PUTHUKOTHUMKANDI HOUSE,

PUNNASSERY.P.O, KAKKUR VILAGE, KOZHIKODE TALUK,NOW

RESIDING AT PUTHANKULAM NANDANAM HOUSE, CHELANNUR

VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE TALUK, CHELANNUR.P.O, KOZHIKODE

DISTRICT, PIN - 673616

BY ADVS.

SMT.LISY T.SKARIA

SMT.SHYNI PELEXY

RESPONDEN T S/PETITIONER S :

1 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

KAKKUR POLICE STATION, KAKKUR. P.O, KAKKUR VILLAGE,

KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673585

2 STATE OF KERALA

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF

KERALA, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI, PIN - 682031

SR PP SMT SEETHA S

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. 249 OF 2026 -----------------------------------------

Dated this the 12th day of January, 2026

ORDER

The petitioner is the counter petitioner in M.C.No.1145/2025 pending before the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kozhikode.

2. The petitioner stated that he has been served with Annexure-A1 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.50,000/- 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 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 order may be quashed.

4. Heard; Sri. Lisy T. Skaria, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Sreeja V., 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 t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top