Kerala High Court
Arjun @ Ambadi vs State Of Kerala on 28 October, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
CRL.MC NO. 9656 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:80868
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 9656 OF 2025
CRIME NO.531/2023 OF Mararikulam Police Station, Alappuzha
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN MC NO.526 OF 2025 OF SUB
DVL.MAGISTRATE, ALAPPUZHA
PETITIONER/S:
ARJUN @ AMBADI,
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O ANIL KUMAR, KALIYANATTU VELI HOUSE,
KANICHUKULANGARA VILLAGE, MARARIKULAM NORTH PANCHAYAT,
WARD NO. 1, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
KERALA, PIN - 688523
BY ADV SRI.P.T.SHEEJISH
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031
2 THE SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE,
OFFICE OF THE SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, ALAPPUZHA.,
PIN - 688001
3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
MARARIKULAM POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT., PIN -
688523
OTHER PRESENT:
PP SRI M P PRASANTH
CRL.MC NO. 9656 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:80868
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 9656 OF 2025
3
2025:KER:80868
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 9656 OF 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of October, 2025
ORDER
The petitioner is the counter petitioner in
M.C.No.526/2025 pending before the Court of the Sub
Divisional Magistrate, Alappuzha.
2. The petitioner has been served with Annexure-A1
preliminary order calling upon him to show cause why he
should not be ordered to execute a bond for Rs.75,000/- with
two solvent sureties for the like amount 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,
CRL.MC NO. 9656 OF 2025
2025:KER:80868
Annexure-A1 order may be quashed.
4. Heard; Sri.P.T.Sheejish, 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.
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".
CRL.MC NO. 9656 OF 2025
2025:KER:80868
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.
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
CRL.MC NO. 9656 OF 2025
2025:KER:80868
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.
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 23 rd 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".
CRL.MC NO. 9656 OF 2025
2025:KER:80868
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
rkc/28.10.25
CRL.MC NO. 9656 OF 2025
2025:KER:80868
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY ORDER DATED
17.09.2025 IN MC 526/2025 ISSUED BY THE SUB-
DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, ALAPPUZHA
Annexure A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR CRIME NO. 531/2023
OF MARARIKULAM POLICE STATION DATED
04.07.2023
Annexure A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.
6319 OF 2025 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED
05.03.2025
