Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 56010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. Dias, J
Shijad M – Appellant
Versus
Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kanhangad – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 5544 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri. P.K. Subhash
For the Respondents: Sri. Devadas H. Mallan
An order requiring a person to execute a bond for keeping peace under the BNSS is unsustainable if it is passed without application of mind, fails to state the substance of information received, or relies on mere registration of crimes without an imminent threat to peace.
Headnote:(A) Executive Magistrate - Bond for keeping peace - Non-application of mind - Passing an order based on incorrect factual premises, such as wrongly identifying a person as an accused in crimes they are not involved in, renders the order arbitrary and unsustainable. (Para 8)
(B) Procedural Compliance - Substance of Information - Failure to set forth the substance of information received in the order as mandated by Section 130 of the BNSS (formerly Section 111 CrPC) vitiates the order and makes it bad in law. (Para 8, 12)
(C) Imminent Threat - Mere registration of criminal cases - The mere registration of a crime and anticipation of possible violence, without a demonstrated imminent threat to peace, is insufficient to justify an order for a bond to keep the peace. (Para 11)
Issues: Whether the order passed by the SDM requiring the petitioner to execute a bond for keeping peace was legally sustainable given the lack of application of mind and failure to state the substance of information.
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03.06.2026 IN MC NO.235 OF 2025 OF SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, KANHANGAD
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.08.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
Dated this the 20th day of August, 2026
The petitioner is the counter-petitioner in M.C. No.235/2025 pending before the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (‘SDM’, for brevity), Kanhangad.
The petitioner was served with Annexure A1 preliminary order calling upon him to execute a bond for Rs. 50,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum for the purpose of keeping peace for a period of one year from 09.12.2025, on the finding that the petitioner is an accused in Crime No. 896/2025 of the Neeleshwaram Police Station, on the allegation that there was a likelihood of him involving in political clashes in the impending local self-Government elections. By Annexure A2 order, this Court, on finding that the substance of information was not stated in Annexure A1 order, set aside the above order and directed the SDM to reconsider the matter as per the mandate under Section 126 read with Section 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’, in short). Consequent to Annexure A2 order, the SDM has passed Annexure A3 order dated 03.06.2026, directing the petitioner to execute a bond for Rs. 50,000/- with two solvent sureties to keep peace for a period of one year from 11.06.2026. In Annexure A3 order, it is alleged that the petitioner is an accused in Crime Nos. 896/2025, 479/2025 and 547/2025 and is a defacto complainant in Crime No. 895/2026. Therefore, there is every likelihood of a potential threat to the peace and tranquility in the region. Annexure A3 order is ex facie erroneous and unsustainable in law. Hence, the Crl.M.C.
I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Annexure A3 order is palpably arbitrary and malafide. It is the petitioner’s case that Annexure A1 order was issued under a totally different background, calling upon the petitioner to execute the bond on the allegation that there was a potential threat to the public peace and tranquility in the region, especially in view of the impending local self-Government elections. Consequent to the remand, the SDM has passed Annexure A3 order on totally different allegation that, as the petitioner is an accused in three crimes, the defacto complainant in another crime and there is a rivalry between two groups in connection with the administration of the mosque located at Neeleshwaram market, the petitioner is a potential threat to the public peace and tranquility in the region. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner is not an accused in Crime Nos. 479/2025 and 547/2025, which is evident from Annexures A5 and A6 FIRs registered by the Neeleshwaram Police Station. The said crimes are registered in connection with some disputes pertaining to car parking. On the other hand, Crime No. 895/2026 is registered by the petitioner against the accused persons who, on the contrary, have got Crime No. 896/2026 registered by the same police station. There is also no dispute that there is a civil dispute between the parties regarding the administration of the mosque. The said dispute presumably may not cause a potential threat to the public peace and the tranquility in the region. Therefore, Annexure A3 order may be quashed.
The learned Public Prosecutor submits that all four crimes are registered in connection with the administration in the mosque. There is no error in Annexure A3 order warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the petition may be dismissed.
Admittedly, Annexure A1 order was passed by the SDM due to the impending local self-Government elections. This Court set aside the order and directed the SDM to reconsider the matter afresh.
On the reconsideration of the matter, the SDM has pass
