BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 04/11/2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN and Crl.M.P(MD) No.16124 of 2025 Rajkumar @ Kumuli Rajkumar ... Petitioner Vs

1. The II Class Executive Magistrate Cum Tahsildar, Tirunelveli.

2.State of Tamilnadu, Rep by Inspector of Police, Thatchanallur Police Station, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records pertaining to the order of the first respondent passed in A3/2383/2025 (BNSS 129) dated 10.10.2025 and set aside the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Leninkumar, Advocate For Respondents : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram, Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the impugned notice issued by the first respondent under Section 129 of BNSS, 2023.

2. By the impugned notice, the petitioner was required to show cause as to why he should not execute a bond for good behaviour.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned notice suffers from non-application of mind; that except for mentioning a letter bearing Ref.No.LIR No.38 of 2025, the notice does not state as to why Section 129 of BNSS has to be invoked against the petitioner and therefore, the impugned notice is liable to be set aside.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents, would however submit that there are some cases pending against the petitioner; and that the non mentioning of the cases registered against the petitioner would not vitiate the subjective satisfaction of the first respondent.

5. The impugned notice, as stated earlier, is issued under Section

129 of BNSS, which reads as follows:

(cid:28) 129. When an Executive Magistrate receives information that there is within his local jurisdiction a person who—

(a) is by habit a robber, house-breaker, thief, or forger, or (b) is by habit a receiver of stolen property knowing the same to have been stolen, or (c) habitually protects or harbours thieves, or aids in the concealment or disposal of stolen property, or (d) habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of, the offence of kidnapping, abduction, extortion, cheating or mischief, or any offence punishable under Chapter XII of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, or under section 176, section 177, section

178 or section 179 of that Sanhita, or (e) habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of, offences, involving a breach of the peace, or (f) habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of—

(i) any offence under one or more of the following Acts, namely:—

(a) the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940;

(b) the Foreigners Act, 1946;

(c) the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952;

(d) the Essential Commodities Act, 1955;

(e) the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955;

(f) the Customs Act, 1962;

(g) the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006;

or (ii) any offence punishable under any other law providing for the prevention of hoarding or profiteering or of adulteration of food or drugs or of corruption, or (g) is so desperate and dangerous to render his being at large without security hazardous to the community, such Magistrate may, in the manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, with sureties, for his good behaviour for such period, not exceeding three years, as the Magistrate thinks fit.”

Clauses (a) to (f) would suggest that the person from whom security for good behaviour is sought for, must have committed the offences habitually. Clause (g) states that the person must be so desperate and dangerous to render his being at large without security hazardous to the community. The impugned notice is bereft of necessary details as to why the petitioner has been construed as an habitual offender or why his being at large is hazardous to the community. Though it is submitted by the learned Government Advoca