Kerala High Court
Inshad Isak vs State Of Kerala on 6 April, 2026
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
CRL.MC NO. 11673 OF 2025
1
2026:KER:30347
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL 2026 / 16TH CHAITHRA, 1948
CRL.MC NO. 11673 OF 2025
CRIME NO.TDR463/2025 OF Nenmara Police Station, Palakkad
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN MC NO.285 OF 2025 OF SUB
DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE,PALAKKAD
PETITIONER/S:
INSHAD ISAK,
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O.ISAK, SOUHRIDHA HOUSE, KARAPPADAM, MOOLAMKODE,
KIZHAKKENCHERY, ALATHUR BLOCK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN -
678683
BY ADVS.
SHRI.BALRAM S.A.
SMT.POOJA P.O.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE,
OFFICE OF THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE CIVIL STATION
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
3 STATION HOUSE, OFFICER,
NENMARA POLICE STATION, NENMARA PALAKKAD, PIN - 678541
OTHER PRESENT:
CRL.MC NO. 11673 OF 2025
2
2026:KER:30347
SR.PP.SMT.SEETHA S
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.04.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 11673 OF 2025
3
2026:KER:30347
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.11673 of 2025
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of April, 2026
ORDER
The petitioner is the counter-petitioner in
M.C.No.285/2025 pending before the Court of the Sub
Divisional Magistrate, Palakkad (2nd respondent).
2. By Annexure-II order, the petitioner has been
directed to show cause why he should not be ordered to
execute a bond for Rs.10,000/- with two solvent sureties for
the like sum for the purpose of keeping peace for a period of
one year as envisaged under Section 126 read with Sections
129 and 130 of the BNSS.
3. The petitioner contends that, Annexure-11 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
Sections 129 and 130 of the BNSS, and the law laid down by
this Court in Moidu vs. State of Kerala (1982 KHC 139).
Therefore, Annexure-A2 order may be quashed.
CRL.MC NO. 11673 OF 2025
4
2026:KER:30347
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. In the above context it is necessary to refer to
Sections 126, 129 and 130 of the BNSS, which corresponds to
the erstwhile Sections 107, 110 and 111 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure,which reads as follows:
“126. (1) When an Executive Magistrate receives information that
any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the
public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may probably
occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility and
is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he may,
in the manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show
cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond or bail bond
for keeping the peace for such period, not exceeding one year, as
the Magistrate thinks fit.
(2) Proceedings under this section may be taken before any
Executive Magistrate when either the place where the breach of
the peace or disturbance is apprehended is within his local
jurisdiction or there is within such jurisdiction a person who is
likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public
tranquillity or to do any wrongful act as aforesaid beyond such
jurisdiction.
129. Security for good behaviour from habitual offender: 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 X
of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, or under section 178,
section 179, section 180 or section 181 of that Sanhita, or
(e) habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the
commission of, offences, involving a breach of the peace, or
CRL.MC NO. 11673 OF 2025
52026:KER:30347
(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; (23 of 1940)
(b) the Foreigners Act, 1946; (31 of 1946)
(c) the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions
Act, 1952; (19 of 1952)
(d) the Essential Commodities Act, 1955; (10 of 1955)
(e) the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955; (22 of 1955)
(f) the Customs Act, 1962; (52 of 1962)
(g) the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006; (34 of 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.
130. When a Magistrate acting under section 126, section 127,
section 128 or section 129, deems it necessary to require any
person to show cause under such section, he shall make an order in
writing, setting forth the substance of the information received, the
amount of the bond to be executed, the term for which it is to be in
force and the number of sureties, after considering the sufficiency
and fitness of sureties”.
6. The above provisions explicitly postulates that the
Executive Magistrate, on receiving information that any
person is likely to commit a breach of peace, disturb the public
tranquility or does any wrongful act, and that there are
sufficient grounds to proceed against him, the Executive
Magistrate may, in the manner provided under Chapter IX of
the BNSS, require such person to show cause why he should
CRL.MC NO. 11673 OF 2025
6
2026:KER:30347
not be ordered to execute a bond or bail bond for his good
behavior for such period, not exceeding one year provided an
order in writing is passed, setting forth the substance of
information received, the amount of bond to be executed, the
term for which it is to be in force and the number of sureties.
7. It is the petitioner’s case that, the Sub Divisional
Magistrate has passed Annexure-11 order without furnishing
the substance of information. Instead, the Sub Divisional
Magistrate has merely stated that the petitioner is involved in
a crime registered by the Police.
8. In Jayanth K. C. v. State of Kerala (2025 KHC 1591),
this Court has held that mere registration of a crime and an
anticipation of possible violence, without imminent threat to
peace, is insufficient to justify an order under Section 111 of
the Cr.P.C.
9. Similarly in Girish P. and others v. State of Kerala
and another (2009 (4) KHC 929), this Court has held that
unless the substance of information is stated in an order
passed under Section 111 of the Cr.P.C, the order passed
under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C., is bad in law.
CRL.MC NO. 11673 OF 2025
7
2026:KER:30347
In light of the principles laid down in the afore-cited
decisions and the fact that substance of information is
conspicuously absent in Annexure-11 order, I am satisfied
that the Crl.M.C. is to be allowed. Accordingly Annexure-11
order is set aside. The Sub Divisional Magistrate is directed to
reconsider the matter as per the mandate under Sections 126,
129 and 130 of the BNSS and in accordance with law.
sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rkc
CRL.MC NO. 11673 OF 2025
8
2026:KER:30347
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 11673 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.P.(G&W) NO.366 OF 2023, ON
THE FILES OF THE FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD
Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF THE B DIARY PROCEEDINGS OF O.P.
(G&W) NO.366 OF 2023, ON THE FILES OF THE
FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD DATED 24-12-2024, 29-
04-2025 AND 22-05-2025
Annexure 3 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.533 OF 2023,OF
NENMARA POLICE STATION DATED 17-07-2023
Annexure 4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 17-07-2023
Annexure 5 TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R NO.82 OF 2025 OF
NEMMARA POLICE STATION WAS REGISTERED ON 29-
12-2024 DATED 29-12-2024
Annexure 6 TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R NO.CRIME NO.886 OF
2024 OF NEMMARA POLICE STATION DATED 29-12-
2024
Annexure 7 TRUE COPY OF THE FI.R NO.887 OF 2024 OF
NENMARA POLICE STATION, DATED 30-12-2024
Annexure 8 TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R NO.887 OF 2024, OF
NENMARA POLICE STATION, DATED 30-12-2024
Annexure 9 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.357 OF 2025 OF
NENMARA POLICE STATION DATED 18-05-2025
Annexure 10 TRUE COPY OF FIR NO.355 OF 2025 OF NEMMARA
POLICE STATION DATED 18-05-2025
Annexure 11 TRUE COPY OF M.C. NO. 285 OF 2025 ON THE FILE
OF THE SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, PALAKKAD,
ARISING FROM CRIME NO. TDR/463/2025 OF
NEMMARA POLICE STATION, DATED 29-4-2025
