A preliminary order under the BNSS lacks validity without the requisite substance of information; procedural correctness is mandatory.

ORDER

Dated this the 22^nd day of January, 2026 The petitioner is the counter petitioner in M.C.No.853/2025 on the file of the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thrissur.

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 for the like amount to keep peace for a period of one year as envisaged under Section 129 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 129 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.V.A.Vinod, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Seetha S, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

5. In the above context it is necessary to refer to Sections 129 and 130 of the BNSS , which reads as follows:

“129. Security for good behaviour from habitual offender:

When an Executive Magistrate receives information that there is within his local jurisdiction a person who—

(a) is by habit a robber, house-breaker, thief, or forger, or

(b) is by habit a receiver of stolen property knowing the same to have been stolen, or

(c) habitually protects or harbours thieves, or aids in the concealment or disposal of stolen property, or

(d) habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of, the offence of kidnapping, abduction, extortion, cheating or mischief, or any offence punishable under Chapter X of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, or under section 178, section 179, section 180 or section 181 of that Sanhita, or

(e) habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of, offences, involving a breach of the peace, or

(f) habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of—

(i) any offence under one or more of the following Acts, namely:—

(a) the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940; (23 of 1940)

(b) the Foreigners Act, 1946; (31 of 1946)

(c) the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952; (19 of 1952)

(d) the Essential Commodities Act, 1955; (10 of 1955)

(e) the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955; (22 of 1955)

(f) the Customs Act, 1962; (52 of 1962)

(g) the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006; (34 of 2006)

or

(ii) any offence punishable under any other law providing for the prevention of hoarding or profiteering or of adulteration of food or drugs or of corruption, or (g) is so desperate and dangerous to render his being at large without security hazardous to the community, such Magistrate may, in the manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, with sureties, for his good behaviour for such period, not exceeding three years, as the Magistrate thinks fit.”

“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 a person within his local jurisdiction has committed any of the acts mentioned in Clauses (a) to (g) in Section 129 , he may direct the p