The requirement for magistrates to provide substantive reasoning in peace bond orders is critical for legality under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS THURSDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 16TH MAGHA, 1947 CRL.MC NO. 1006 OF 2026 CRIME NO.1299/2024 OF Narakkal Police Station, Ernakulam AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.12.2025 IN MC NO.415 OF 2025 OF SUB DIVISIONAL COURT,FORT COCHIN PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER :

BALAMURALI KRISHNAN AGED 26 YEARS S/O BABU, KALATHIPARAMBU HOUSE, VALLAKADAVU, NJARAKKAL ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682505 BY ADVS.

SHRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR SMT.AMRUTHA K P SMT.AMRUTHA P.S.

SHRI.VIJAY SANKAR V.H.

SHRI.JERIN JOSEPH SHRI.SIDHARTH SHAJI SMT.LAKSHMI PRIYA P.

SHRI.DEVARAJ SUBRAMANIAN RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT :

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 682031

2 THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE COURT, REVENUE ZONAL OFFICE, FIRST FLOOR, FORT KOCHI, KOCHI, PIN - 682001 PP SRI M P PRASANTH THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

05.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

C.S.DIAS, J.

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

Crl.M.C. No. 1006 OF 2026 -----------------------------------------

Dated this the 5^th day of February, 2026

ORDER

The petitioner is the counter petitioner in M.C.No.415/2025 pending before the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fort Cochin.

2. By Annexure -I order, the petitioner has been directed to execute a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- 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).

3. The petitioner contends that Annexure-I 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 in Moidu vs. State of Kerala ( 1982 KHC 139 ). Therefore, Annexure-I order may be quashed.

4. Heard; Sri.K.S. Arun Kumar, 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