Court mandates that orders under BNSS must explicitly state the information leading to the order.

ORDER

The petitioner is the counter petitioner in M.C.No.443/2025 pending before the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fort Cochin.

2. The petitioner has been served with Annexure-1 order directing the petitioner to execute a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount for the purpose of keeping peace for a period of one year as envisaged under Sections 129 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (‘ BNSS ’, in short).

3. The petitioner contends that Annexure-1 order is unsustainable in law because the above Court has not set forth the substance of the information in the said order, which is mandatory under Sections 126 and 129 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-1 order may be quashed.

4. Heard; Sri.P.M.Ziraj, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. In the above context, it is necessary to refer to Sections 126 , 129 and 130 of the BNSS , which corresponds to the erstwhile Sections 107 , 110 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.

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 f