[Cites 17, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Vishnu vs State Of Kerala on 6 December, 2025

Author: C.S.Dias

Bench: C.S.Dias

                                                        2025:KER:94518
CRL.MC NO. 11107 OF 2025

                                     1


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT

                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

  SATURDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA,

                                   1947

                         CRL.MC NO. 11107 OF 2025

        AGAINST    THE    ORDER/JUDGMENT   DATED    19.09.2025   IN   MC

NO.430 OF 2025 OF SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, IRINJALAKUDA

PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITINER:

            VISHNU
            AGED 27 YEARS
            S/O VENUGOPALAN, KUKKAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, MUNAYAM
            DESOM, EDATHIRUTHY VILLAGE THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN
            - 680703


            BY ADVS.
            SRI.P.S.ANISHAD
            SMT.LIMNA BHASKARAN
            SHRI.VISHNU.R
            SMT.K.K.SHEEBA
            SMT.DONY C. JOSE
            SMT.ARCHANA MITHRAN O.K.
            SMT.SREEPARVATHI G.V.




RESPONDENTS/STATE/PETITIONER:

    1       STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
            OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031
                                                            2025:KER:94518
CRL.MC NO. 11107 OF 2025

                                        2


     2    STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
          KAIPAMANGALAM POLICE STATION KAIPAMANGALAM,
          THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680681



OTHER PRESENT:

             PP SRI M P PRASANTH


      THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   06.12.2025,    THE   COURT    ON       THE   SAME   DAY   PASSED   THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                 2025:KER:94518
CRL.MC NO. 11107 OF 2025

                                3




        Dated this the 6th day of December, 2025

                           ORDER

The petitioner is the counter petitioner in

M.C.No.430/2025 on the file of the Court of the Sub

Divisional Magistrate, Irinjalakuda.

2. The petitioner has been served with Annexure-I

preliminary order directing him to show cause why he

should not execute a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with two

solvent sureties for the like amount to keep peace for a

period of three years as envisaged under Section 129

read with Section 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023 ('BNSS', in short).

3. The petitioner states that, the substance of

information is conspicuously absent in Annexure-I order, 2025:KER:94518 CRL.MC NO. 11107 OF 2025

which is mandatory under Section 129 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 quashed.

4. Heard; Sri.P.S. Anishad, 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 129 and 130 of the BNSS, which corresponds to

the erstwhile Sections 110 and 111 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure,which reads as follows:

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, 2025:KER:94518 CRL.MC NO. 11107 OF 2025

extortion, cheating or mischief, or any offence punishable under Chapter X of the Bharatiya 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

(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 as 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 bail bond, 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 2025:KER:94518 CRL.MC NO. 11107 OF 2025

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-I preliminary 2025:KER:94518 CRL.MC NO. 11107 OF 2025

order without furnishing the substance of information.

Instead, the Sub Divisional Magistrate has merely stated

that the petitioner is involved in 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.

10. A Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in

Farhan Nasir Khan and others v. State of Maharashtra 2025:KER:94518 CRL.MC NO. 11107 OF 2025

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.

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 23 rd 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-I preliminary order,

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

2025:KER:94518 CRL.MC NO. 11107 OF 2025

Accordingly Annexure-A1 preliminary order is set aside.

The Sub Divisional Magistrate is directed to reconsider

the matter as per the mandate under Sections 129 and

130 of the BNSS and in accordance with law.

SD/-

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE rmm/6/12/2025 2025:KER:94518 CRL.MC NO. 11107 OF 2025

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 11107 OF 2025