An order under Sections 126 and 130 must set forth the substance of information to ensure its validity.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS FRIDAY, THE 27^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 8TH PHALGUNA, 1947 CRL.MC NO. 1788 OF 2026 CRIME NO.582/2025 OF Panangad Police Station, Ernakulam AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 24.11.2025 IN MC NO.1372 OF 2025 OF SUB DIVISIONAL COURT,FORT COCHIN PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER:

HARIS.P.H AGED 39 YEARS S/O. HAMSA, PULIYAPILLI HOUSE, OLD MARKET ROAD, NETTOOR.P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682040 BY ADVS.

SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SMT.N.P.ASHA RESPONDENT/STATE:

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682031 PP. SRI. M.P.PRASANTH THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

27.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER Dated this the 27^th day of February, 2026 The petitioner is the counter petitioner in M.C.No.1372/2025 pending before the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fort Kochi.

2. The petitioner has stated in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case that he has been served with Annexure-1 order directing him to show cause why he should not execute a cash bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount for purpose of keeping 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-1 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 read with of the , 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.K.K.Dheerendrakrishan, 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 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 that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against him, the Executive Magistrate may, in the