[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Jaison Joseph @ Jaisan vs State Of Kerala on 24 February, 2026
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
CRL.MC NO. 1672 OF 2026 1
2026:KER:16407
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 1672 OF 2026
CRIME NO.1801/2025 OF ANGAMALI POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09.02.2026 IN MC NO.37 OF 2026 OF
SUB DIVISIONAL COURT,FORT COCHIN
PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER:
JAISON JOSEPH @ JAISAN
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O OUSEPH, THOTTAPILLY HOUSE, AZHAKAM P.O,
KARUKUTTY ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 683576
BY ADV SHRI.ANWIN JOHN ANTONY
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, (REPRESENTING STATION
HOUSE OFFICER, ANGAMALY POLICE STATION), PIN - 682031
BY SMT.SEETHA S, SR.PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 1672 OF 2026 2
2026:KER:16407
ORDER
Dated this the 24th day of February, 2026
The petitioner is the counter petitioner in
M.C.No.37/2026 on file of 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-2
preliminary order directing him to show cause why he
should not be called upon to execute a 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-2
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
2026:KER:16407
Court in Moidu vs. State of Kerala (1982 KHC 139).
Therefore, Annexure-2 order may be quashed.
4. Heard; the learned Counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Senior 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. 1672 OF 2026 4
2026:KER:16407
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-2 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
CRL.MC NO. 1672 OF 2026 5
2026:KER:16407
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-2 order, I am satisfied that
the Crl.M.C. is to be allowed. Accordingly Annexure-2 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. 1672 OF 2026 6
2026:KER:16407
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 1672 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 07.09.2025 IN
CRIME NO.1801 OF 2025 OF ANGAMALY POLICE
ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER 09.02.2026 IN M.C NO.
ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09.02.2026 IN
ANNEXURE 4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.10.2025
OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN CRL.M.C
