Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S.DIAS, J
ASWATHY – Appellant
Versus
SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE DEVIKULAM – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to bond order under bnss due to lack of required information. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court emphasizes need for adequate documentation in magistrate's orders. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. precedents cited support the necessity of substantive reasoning in legal orders. (Para 8) |
ORDER
The petitioner is the counter-petitioner in M.C. No. 27/2026 pending before the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Devikulam.
2. The petitioner has stated in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case that she has been directed to show cause why she should not be called upon to execute a bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties of Rs. 50,000/- for the 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-A1 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-A1 order
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
