S.125-143 BNSS empowers Executive Magistrates to require persons to execute bonds (with or without sureties) for keeping the peace or for good behaviour. These are preventive provisions; they do not punish past conduct but prevent apprehended future harm. The jurisdiction is exercised by Executive Magistrates, not Judicial Magistrates.
Legal Framework
| Provision | Subject |
|---|---|
| S.125 BNSS (formerly S.106 CrPC) | Security for keeping peace on conviction |
| S.126 BNSS (formerly S.107 CrPC) | Security for keeping peace on information |
| S.127 BNSS (formerly S.108 CrPC) | Security for good behaviour from habitual offenders |
| S.128 BNSS (formerly S.109 CrPC) | Security for good behaviour from suspected persons |
| S.129 BNSS (formerly S.111 CrPC) | Order to furnish security |
| S.130 BNSS (formerly S.122 CrPC) | Procedure on failure to give security |
| S.131-132 | Discharge of surety, power to reject surety |
| S.133 | Procedure on breach of bond |
| S.134-143 | Inquiry procedure, commencement, evidence, order |
Why: Prevention is better than punishment. These provisions allow the State to intervene before an offence is committed, based on credible information that a person is likely to disturb public peace or commit offences.
Types of Security Proceedings
Security for Keeping Peace (S.125-126)
| Section | Trigger | Who Issues |
|---|---|---|
| S.125 | On conviction: court satisfied person likely to commit breach of peace | Court of conviction |
| S.126 | On information: Executive Magistrate receives information of likelihood of breach of peace | Executive Magistrate (District/Sub-Divisional) |
Security for Good Behaviour (S.127-128)
| Section | Target | Condition |
|---|---|---|
| S.127 | Habitual offenders | Person habitually commits or attempts to commit offences involving breach of peace |
| S.128 | Suspected persons | Person taking precautions to conceal presence and there is reason to believe is doing so to commit cognizable offence |
Procedure (S.129-143)
| Step | Detail | Section |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Information received or conviction recorded | S.125-128 |
| 2 | Order to show cause | S.129 |
| 3 | Inquiry: evidence recorded | S.134-137 |
| 4 | Person must be present (summons/warrant) | S.138 |
| 5 | Right to cross-examine, produce evidence | S.136 |
| 6 | Order: execute bond (with/without sureties) | S.129 |
| 7 | Period of bond | S.125: max 1 year; S.126: max 1 year; S.127: max 3 years |
| 8 | Failure to furnish security | S.130: imprisonment (max period = bond period) |
Bond Periods:
| Section | Maximum Period |
|---|---|
| S.125 (peace on conviction) | 1 year |
| S.126 (peace on information) | 1 year |
| S.127 (good behaviour: habitual offender) | 3 years |
| S.128 (good behaviour: suspected person) | 1 year |
Consequence of Failure (S.130)
If the person ordered to furnish security fails to do so, the Magistrate may commit such person to prison:
- For a term not exceeding the period for which security was ordered
- Maximum: 1 year (S.125-126, S.128) or 3 years (S.127)
Why: Imprisonment for failure is not punishment for an offence but a civil sanction to enforce the preventive order. The person can secure release at any time by furnishing the bond.
Illustrations
- Suresh and Dinesh are rival village factions. Every Holi, their groups clash last year, three people were hospitalized. This year, the SDM receives intelligence that both groups are stockpiling lathis. Under S.126, the SDM can summon both Suresh and Dinesh and order them to furnish a bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each, guaranteeing they will keep the peace for 6 months. No offence has been committed yet this is purely preventive. If they refuse the bond, they can be detained (S.130). If they breach it (start a fight), the bond is forfeited.
Recall Check
- What is the maximum period of bond under S.127 (habitual offender)?
- Which type of Magistrate exercises jurisdiction under S.126?
- What happens if a person fails to furnish security under S.130?
Key Cases
Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar (1966) Ram-Manohar-Lohia-v-State-of-Bihar-1966 Issue: Whether preventive detention/security provisions can be used to suppress legitimate political activity. Rule: Preventive powers must be exercised based on proximate connection to public order, not mere law and order. Held: Security proceedings for keeping peace cannot be used to stifle democratic dissent. The apprehended breach of peace must be genuine and proximate, not speculative. Orders must distinguish between public order and mere law and order.
Madhu Limaye v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate (1970) Madhu-Limaye-v-Sub-Divisional-Magistrate-1970 Issue: Whether an order under S.107 CrPC (now S.126 BNSS) is subject to judicial review. Rule: Preventive orders by Executive Magistrates are subject to review by High Court under Art.226 and S.482 CrPC (now S.528 BNSS). Held: The order must be based on material and not on mere suspicion. The person affected has right to hearing, cross-examination, and judicial review. Executive discretion in preventive matters is not absolute.
Distinctions
| Parameter | Security for Peace (S.125-126) | Security for Good Behaviour (S.127-128) |
|---|---|---|
| Target | Anyone likely to breach peace | Habitual offenders / suspected persons |
| Trigger | Conviction or information | Pattern of behaviour / concealment |
| Max bond period | 1 year | 3 years (S.127), 1 year (S.128) |
| Standard of proof | Likelihood of breach | Habitual conduct / reasonable suspicion |
| Initiated by | Court (S.125) or Executive Magistrate (S.126) | Executive Magistrate |
| Nature | Preventive | Both preventive and surveillance |
Flashcards
Q: Under S.126, who exercises power to demand security for keeping peace? A: Executive Magistrate (District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate).
Q: What is the maximum bond period for a habitual offender under S.127? A: 3 years.
Q: What happens under S.130 if the person fails to furnish security? A: Imprisonment for a term not exceeding the period for which security was demanded.
Q: What is the nature of security proceedings? A: Preventive (not punitive); they aim to prevent anticipated breach, not punish past conduct.
Q: Can a person imprisoned under S.130 secure release? A: Yes, by furnishing the required security at any time during imprisonment.
Q: What did Ram Manohar Lohia establish about preventive powers? A: Security proceedings cannot be used to suppress legitimate political activity; the apprehended breach must be genuine and proximate to public order.
Exam Scenario
An Executive Magistrate receives information that X, a trade union leader, plans to organize a peaceful protest march against the government. The Magistrate issues an order under S.126 requiring X to furnish security for keeping the peace. X challenges the order. Advise.
Under S.126 BNSS, the Executive Magistrate can order security only when there are sufficient grounds for believing that a person is likely to commit a breach of peace. Per Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar (1966), a peaceful protest is a fundamental right under Art.19(1)(a) and (b). The mere organization of a protest does not constitute apprehended breach of peace. The Magistrate must distinguish between: (1) exercise of democratic rights (law and order issue at most), and (2) genuine threat to public order. Unless there is credible material showing the protest will likely result in violence or breach of peace (not mere inconvenience), the order under S.126 is unsustainable. X can challenge the order under Art.226 before the High Court. The order should be quashed as an unreasonable restriction on fundamental rights.