Muhammad Sahal vs The Sub Divisional Magistrate, … on 6 April, 2026

    0
    29
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Kerala High Court

    Muhammad Sahal vs The Sub Divisional Magistrate, … on 6 April, 2026

    Author: C.S.Dias

    Bench: C.S.Dias

                                                         2026:KER:30010
    CRL.MC NO. 3098 OF 2026
    
                                     1
    
    
                 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. 3098 OF 2026
    
            AGAINST THE ORDER DATED IN MC NO.226 OF 2025 OF SUB
    
    DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, KANHANGAD
    
    PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER:
    
               MUHAMMAD SAHAL
               AGED 34 YEARS
               S/O SAINUDEEN CK, NADEEM MANZIL, MARKET JUNCTION,
               NILESHWARAM VILLAGE, KASARGOD DISTRICT., PIN -
               671314
    
    
               BY ADV SRI.P.K.SUBHASH
    
    
    RESPONDENTS/STATE:
         1    THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, KANHANGAD
              OFFICE OF THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE KANHANGAD,
              KASARAGOD DISTRICT., PIN - 671315
    
        2      THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
               NILESHWARAM POLICE STATION, KASARGOD DISTRICT, PIN -
               671314
    
        3      STATE OF KERALA
               REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
               KERALA AT ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
    
               SR.PP. SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK
    
    
         THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
    06.04.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                           2026:KER:30010
    CRL.MC NO. 3098 OF 2026
    
                                      2
    
    
                                 ORDER
    

    Dated this the 6th day of April, 2026

    The petitioner is the counter petitioner in

    SPONSORED

    M.C.No.226/2025 on the file of the Court of the Sub

    Divisional Magistrate, Kanhangad.

    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 called upon to execute a bond

    for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties for Rs. 50,000/-

    each for the purpose of keeping 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

    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
    2026:KER:30010
    CRL.MC NO. 3098 OF 2026

    3

    Section 126 read with Section 130 of the BNSS, and the

    law laid down by this Court in Moidu vs. State of Kerala

    (1982 KHC 139). Therefore, Annexure-A1 preliminary

    order may be quashed.

    4. Heard; Sri.P.K.Subhash, the learned Counsel for

    the petitioner and Sri.M.P.Prasanth, the learned Public

    Prosecutor.

    5. In the above context it is necessary to refer to

    Sections 126 and 130 of the BNSS, which corresponds to

    the erstwhile Sections 107 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.”

    2026:KER:30010
    CRL.MC NO. 3098 OF 2026

    4

    “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 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-A1 order without
    2026:KER:30010
    CRL.MC NO. 3098 OF 2026

    5

    furnishing the substance of information. Instead, the Sub

    Divisional Magistrate has merely stated that the petitioner

    is involved in the crimes 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.

    In light of the principles laid down in the afore-cited

    decisions and the fact that substance of information is

    conspicuously absent in Annexure-A1 preliminary order, I

    am satisfied that the Crl.M.C. is to be allowed. Accordingly

    Annexure-A1 preliminary order is set aside. The Sub
    2026:KER:30010
    CRL.MC NO. 3098 OF 2026

    6

    Divisional Magistrate is directed to reconsider the matter

    as per the mandate under Sections 126 and 130 of the

    BNSS and in accordance with law.

    SD/-

    C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

    rmm/6/4/2026
    2026:KER:30010
    CRL.MC NO. 3098 OF 2026

    7

    APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 3098 OF 2026

    PETITIONER ANNEXURES

    Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED NIL IN MC NO.

    226/2025 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here