[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Ansar P. S vs State Of Kerala on 10 February, 2026
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
CRL.MC NO. 1136 OF 2026 1
2026:KER:11768
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 21ST MAGHA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 1136 OF 2026
IN MC NO.46 OF 2025 OF SUB DIVISIONAL COURT,FORT COCHIN
PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER:
ANSAR P. S
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O SIRAJ, PAYYATTIL PARAPPURAM HOUSE, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 682028
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.J.SANTHOSH
SHRI.ANTONY PAUL
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
BY SRI.M.P.PRASANTH, PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 1136 OF 2026 2
2026:KER:11768
ORDER
Dated this the 10th day of February, 2026
The petitioner is the counter petitioner in
M.C.No.46/2025 pending before the Court of the Sub
Divisional Magistrate, Fort Kochi. .
2. The petitioner has stated in the Criminal
Miscellaneous Case that he has been served with Annexure-
A1 order directing him to show cause why he should not be
called upon to execute a cash bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with
two solvent sureties for the like amount for 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 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
2026:KER:11768
this Court in Moidu vs. State of Kerala (1982 KHC 139).
Therefore, Annexure-A1 order may be quashed.
4. Heard; Sri.M.J.Santhosh, 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. 1136 OF 2026 4
2026:KER:11768
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 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
CRL.MC NO. 1136 OF 2026 5
2026:KER:11768
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 order, I am satisfied
that the Crl.M.C. is to be allowed. Accordingly Annexure-A1
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
CRL.MC NO. 1136 OF 2026 6
2026:KER:11768
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 1136 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.05.2025
IN M. C. NO. 46/2025 OF SUB DIVISIONAL
MAGISTRATE COURT, FORT KOCHI
ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO.
1214/2017 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT-IX, ERNAKULAM DOWNLOADED
FROM THE DCMS PORTAL
ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE COPY ORDER DATED 14.01.2026 IN CRL.
