Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S.DIAS, J
SUBIN – Appellant
Versus
THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. preliminary orders must include the substance of the information. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. executive magistrate's orders require substantial justification based on received information. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. prior case law established the need for substantial information in preventive orders. (Para 9) |
ORDER
The petitioner is the counter-petitioner in M.C. No.
603/2025 pending before the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Thrissur.
2. The petitioner has been served with Annexure-1 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 three years 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-1 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 126 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-
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
