Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S.Dias, J
Roshith – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition challenges preliminary order lacking information substance. (Para 2 , 3 , 7) |
| 2. sections 126/130 bnss mandate substance disclosure in orders. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. precedents invalidate orders without imminent threat or details. (Para 8 , 9) |
ORDER
The petitioner is the counter-petitioner in M.C. No. 261/2026 pending before the Court of the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Irinjalakkuda.
2. The petitioner has stated in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case that he has been served with Annexure A1 preliminary order directing him to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum for the purpose of keeping the 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 inMoidu vs. State of Kerala ( 1982 KHC 139 ). Therefore,
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
