Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. DIAS, J
RAMSHEED C.H – Appellant
Versus
THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, KANHANGAD – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner served with a bond order. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. procedural inadequacies alleged in the order. (Para 3 , 4 , 7) |
| 3. importance of substantive information in bond orders. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. prior cases reiterate need for detailed orders. (Para 9) |
ORDER
Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2026 The petitioner is the counter petitioner in M.C.No.224/2025 pending before the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kanhangad.
2. The petitioner has been served with Annexure-A1 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, who in turn have been directed to execute a bond for Rs.25,000/- each, to keep peace for a period of one year as envisaged under Section 126 read with Section 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (‘ BNSS ’, in short).
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
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
