[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Liyakath Ali vs State Of Kerala on 5 December, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
CRL.MC NO. 11073 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:94207
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 11073 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.11.2025 IN MC NO.381 OF 2025
OF SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE,PERINTHALMANNA
PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER:
LIYAKATH ALI
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O ALI KIZHAKKUMPARAMBIL HOUSE KAVALANGAD, N.S.S
COLLEGE ROAD MANJERI, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676121
BY ADVS.
KUM.GAYATHRI MURALEEDHARAN
SMT.ARCHANA B.
SHRI.AJIN K. KURIAKOSE
SMT.SRUTHILAKSHMI SHAJI
RESPONDENT/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE
MINI CIVIL STATION, PERINTHALMANNA KERALA,
PIN - 679322
3 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
MANJERI POLICE STATION MANJERI, MALAPPURAM KERALA,
PIN - 676121
BY SMT.SEETHA S, SR.PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 11073 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:94207
ORDER
Dated this the 05th day of December, 2025
The petitioner is the counter petitioner in
M.C.No.381/2025 pending before the Court of the Sub
Divisional Magistrate, Perinthalmanna.
2. By Annexure-A1 preliminary order the
petitioner has been directed to show cause why he should
not be ordered to execute a bond for Rs.50,000/- with two
solvent sureties for the like sum to keep peace for a period
of one year as contemplated 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 in Moidu vs. State of Kerala
(1982 KHC 139). Therefore, Annexure-A1 order may be
2025:KER:94207
quashed.
4. 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 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."
"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".
2025:KER:94207
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 preliminary
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.
2025:KER:94207
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.
10. A Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in
Farhan Nasir Khan and others v. State of
Maharashtra and others (2020 KHC 3064) has
succinctly held as follows:
"9.To put it simply, the requirement of law is that the
Magistrate has to form an opinion in writing
contemplated by S.111 of the Cr.P.C. and thereafter
proceed to issue a show cause notice as contemplated by
S.107 and along with the show cause notice annex the
opinion. But, in a given case, it may happen that the
language in which the order/opinion contemplated under
S.111 is not comprehensible to the noticee, then the
notice may integrate the order/opinion and convey to the
noticee in the language which the noticee comprehends.
2025:KER:94207
10. The purpose of the law is that the noticee is to be
made known the factual matrix comprising either the
complaint or the information received by the Magistrate
and the reasons for the opinion formed by the
Magistrate.
10 (a). Since we find no contra opinion in Suleman Adam's
case (supra) vis-a-vis the opinion taken by the learned
Single Judge or by the Division Bench of this Court in the
8 decisions referred to in paragraph 3 of the order dated
23rd December, 2014, we return the reference
unanswered for the reason the law is well settled and
captured in the eight decisions noted in paragraph 3 of
the order of reference dated 23rd December 2014".
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 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
NAB
2025:KER:94207
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 11073 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN
M.C.NO.381/2025 PASSED BY THE SUB
DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE COURT,
PERINTHALMANNA DATED 26.11.2025
ANNEXURE A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO: 346/2017 OF
MANJERI POLICE STATION DATED 22-07-2017
ANNEXURE A2(a) THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO:348/2017 OF
MANJERI POLICE STATION DATED 24-07-2017
ANNEXURE A2(b) THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO:117/2020 OF
MANJERI POLICE STATION DATED 14-03-2020
ANNEXURE A2(c) THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO:820/2024 OF
MALAPPURAM POLICE STATION DATED 15-05-2024
ANNEXURE A3 THE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18-02-2025
