[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Vivek vs State Of Kerala on 27 March, 2026
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2026:KER:27304
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1948
CRL.MC NO. 2870 OF 2026
CRIME NO.126/2026 OF Vazhakulam Police Station, Ernakulam
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN MC NO.312 OF 2026
OF SUB DIVISIONAL COURT,FORT COCHIN
PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER:
VIVEK
AGED 31 YEARS
S/O. RAMACHANDRAN, KARADIYAN PARAMBIL HOUSE,
CHIRAKKAKAM, VARAPPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683517
BY ADV SRI.K.R.VINOD
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, KOCHI, PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:
SR PP SMT SEETHA S
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 27.03.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO.2870 of 2026 2
2026:KER:27304
Dated this the 27th day of March, 2026
ORDER
The petitioner is the counter-petitioner in M.C.
No. 312/2026 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 preliminary order directing him to show
cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond of
Rs. 1/- lakh with two solvent sureties for the like sum for
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
2026:KER:27304
law laid down by this Court in Moidu vs. State of
Kerala (1982 KHC 139). Therefore, Annexure-A1 order
may be quashed.
4. I have 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 tranquility 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
CRL.MC NO.2870 of 2026 4
2026:KER:27304
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-A1
preliminary order without furnishing the substance of
CRL.MC NO.2870 of 2026 5
2026:KER:27304
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 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
CRL.MC NO.2870 of 2026 6
2026:KER:27304
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
mtk
CRL.MC NO.2870 of 2026 7
2026:KER:27304
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 2870 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER U/S.130 OF
BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023
IN M.C.NO.312/2026 DATED 12.03.2026 OF
SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, FORT KOCHI
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 07.11.2025 IN
CRL.M.C.NO.6245/2025 OF THIS HON'BLE HIGH
COURT
