Neha vs The State Nct Of Delhi
- Court
- Delhi High Court
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
rd
Date of decision: 23 OCTOBER, 2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
# CNR No. DLHC010511672026
+ W.P.(CRL) 3342/2026 & & CRL.M.A. 33383/2026
NEHA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan,
Senior Advocate with Mr.
Abhik Chimni, Mr. Pranjal
Abrol, Mr. Ayan Das Gupta,
Ms. Moksha Sharma, Mr.
Gurupal Singh, Mr. Kartik
Venu, Mr. Vishal Sinha, Mr.
Kanish Garg, Ms. Indu Mugi C,
Mr. Aayushman Aggarwal,
Advs.
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with
Mr. Ashish K. Dixit, CGSC,
Mr. Umar Hashmi, Mr. Amit
Gupta, Mr. Shubham Sharma,
Mr. Naman, Mr. Adhiraj Singh,
Mr. Shaurya R. Rai, Advocates
and Ms. Nupur Prasad, IPS, Mr
Amit Goel, IPS, SI Chetan
Rana, Insp. Pravesh Kaushik,
Insp. Sube Singh, SI Vaishali
Tushir
Mr. Prashant Prakash, Mr.
Bhairav Dass, Advs.
Mr. Jai Anant Dehadrai, Ms.
Yashvi Swani, Mr. Ram P.
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(CRL) 3342/2026 Page 1 of 46
23.10.2026 20:45
Dubey, Mr. Apurva Chatterji,
Advs. for Intervenor
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
JUDGMENT
1. By way of the instant Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks
quashing of the Notice dated 17.10.2026 ( hereinafter called as the
„Impugned Notice‟) issued by the Special Executive Magistrate, New
Delhi District, New Delhi ( hereinafter called as the „SEM‟), under
Sections 126 and 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 ( hereinafter referred to as the „BNSS‟) to show cause as to why
the Petitioner be not required to execute a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.10,000/- each with one surety in the like amount of Rs.10,000/-
under Section 135(3) of the BNSS for keeping peace for a period of
enquiry.
2. Facts of the case as stated in the instant Writ Petition reveal that
the Petitioner is the National President of All India Students‟
Association (AISA) and claims to be a social activist.
3. In the month of October 2026, there were public protests in
Delhi concerning the functioning of the Election Commission of India
and the Special Intensive Revision of the electoral rolls. On
16.10.2026, admittedly, the Petitioner posted the following on
Instagram, inviting people for gathering at Mandi House, New Delhi:-
“See you today at Mandi House, 5 PM!
Jantar Mantar is not a site that you can denotify,
it‟s a symbol of our resistance! Today, all of
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(CRL) 3342/2026 Page 2 of 46
23.10.2026 20:45
Central Delhi has become Jantar Mantar!”
4. It is stated that on the very same day, i.e., 16.10.2026, at about
05:30 P.M., the Petitioner was detained by the Delhi Police from
Mandi House, and released the following day, i.e., on 17.10.2026.
5. Material on record further indicates that on 17.10.2026, the
Petitioner received the Impugned Notice to show cause as to why she
may not be required to execute a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with
one surety in the like amount for Rs.10,000/- under Section 135(3) of
the BNSS for breach of peace for the period of enquiry. It is this
Notice which is under challenge in the instant Writ Petition.
6. The entire Impugned Notice is reproduced to read as under:-
“ NOTICE UNDER SECTION 126/130 BNSS
Whereas it has been made to appear to me by a
credible information received from SHO/B.K.
Road, New Delhi through SI Vaishali Tushir that
you, Neha Bora D/o Hoshiyar Singh R/o H. No.
25, Meena Bagh, Maulana Azad Road, Delhi,
created nuisance by shouting loudly in protest at
round about Mandi House and you have already
been involved in repeated protest related activity
in and around Jantar Mantra, New Delhi, despite
prohibitory orders 163 BNSS. You instigated
people to participate in unauthorized
demonstration at Central Park, Connaught Place
which is not a designated protest site and also
hoist the national flag without obtaining valid
permission. There is every likelihood of
apprehension of breach of public peace and
tranquility within the jurisdiction of this court.
That you are likely to commit a breach of peace
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(CRL) 3342/2026 Page 3 of 46
23.10.2026 20:45
or to do a wrongful act which may probably
converted in a breach of peace or disturbance of
public tranquility within the local limits and
jurisdiction of this court. You may take law in
your hands and likely to do a wrongful act which
may cause breach of peace and public tranquility
in the area. I am satisfied that there are sufficient
grounds to initiate proceedings against you u/s
126/169 BNSS.
I, MAHESH KUMAR MEENA , Special
Executive Magistrate, New Delhi, Distt. New
Delhi hereby requires you to attend in person (or
with a duly authorized agent) in my court on
19.10.2026 at 2.00 P.M to show cause as to why
you may not be required to execute a Personal
Bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- each with one
surety in the like amount of Rs. 10,000/- U/S 135
(3) BNSS for keeping peace for a period of
enquiry.”
7. It is stated that on 19.10.2026, the Petitioner prayed for
exemption from personal appearance on health grounds and the
Petitioner has now been called on 24.10.2026 at 02:00 P.M to appear
before the SEM.
8. Advance notice has been served on the Respondent/State. Both
sides are represented through their respective Counsel.
9. Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned Senior Counsel for the
Petitioner, raises the following contentions:
i) The Impugned Notice does not meet the essential requirements
prescribed by law under Section 126 of the BNSS. He states
that the Impugned Notice is nothing but a mere mechanical
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(CRL) 3342/2026 Page 4 of 46
23.10.2026 20:45
reproduction of the ingredients of the said provision.
ii) It is submitted that while issuing a notice under Section 126 of
the BNSS, it is imperative on the part of the SEM to enquire
into the material and satisfy himself that the information
received by him would lead to an apprehension of breach of
peace and disturb public tranquillity. He states that without
arriving at an independent opinion by conducting an enquiry on
his own, the Impugned Notice could not have been issued by
the SEM. He therefore submits that without arriving at an
independent opinion, neither an order under Section 130 nor
can a notice under Section 126 of the BNSS be issued.
iii) He draws the attention of this Court to the kalandara dated
17.10.2026, which according to him is the basis of the
Impugned Notice, to submit that a notice under Section
126/130 of the BNSS cannot be issued only on the basis of a
kalandara . He further states that the kalandara indicates that
the Impugned Notice has been issued on the directions of
“ senior officers ,” meaning thereby, that the Impugned Notice
has been issued as a performance of a command and not on the
basis of an independent opinion arrived at by the SEM.
iv) He contends that the Order dated 17.10.2026 passed by the
SEM also indicates that only the kalandara was submitted by
SI Vaishali Tushir, the Investigating Officer ( hereinafter called
as the „SI Vaishali Tushir‟) and on the inspection of the
kalandara , the Impugned Notice has been issued, which also is
an indicator that without there being any enquiry as mandated
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(CRL) 3342/2026 Page 5 of 46
23.10.2026 20:45
at every stage of the proceedings under Chapter IX of the
BNSS, the Impugned Notice has been issued.
v) Attention of this Court is also drawn to Annexure P-8 of the
paper-book, which is an Order dated 23.08.2026 issued by the
Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sub-Division, Parliament
Street, New Delhi, to contend that Mandi House, where the
protest was being called for by the Petitioner, did not fall in the
area in which prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the
BNSS had been passed, meaning thereby, that there was no
restriction on any kind of protest to be carried out in that area.
vi) He further submits that a reading of the Impugned Notice
indicates that the „information‟ on which basis the same has
been issued by the SEM is only hearsay material, which is not
sufficient to initiate proceedings under Chapter IX of the
BNSS.
vii) He further states that the Petitioner had never urged
people to protest in the Central Park, Connaught Place, where
the protest was called for by another group. He also states that
staging a peaceful protest cannot lead to breach of peace and
therefore, the entire basis of the proceedings under Chapter IX
of the BNSS initiated by the SEM is unsustainable.
viii) Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits that
the Impugned Notice does not conform to the law laid down by
the Apex Court and other Courts. He has placed reliance on the
Judgment passed by the Apex Court in Madhu Limaye v. Sub-
Divisional Magistrate, Monghyr, (1970) 3 SCC 746,
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(CRL) 3342/2026 Page 6 of 46
23.10.2026 20:45
Judgments passed by this Court in Aldanish Rein v. State
(NCT of Delhi), 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12207, Asha Pant v.
State, 2008 SCC OnLine Del 367, Vivek Kumar v. State
(NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine Del 417 and Ramavtar v.
State, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8027 , the Judgment passed by
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Medha Patkar v. State of
M.P., 2007 SCC OnLine MP 591 .
10. Per contra, Mr. Chetan Sharma, learned ASG for the State,
draws the attention of this Court to Section 126 of the BNSS to
contend that the SEM has to be in receipt of some information; the
information must be of such nature that a person is likely to commit a
breach of peace and disturb the public tranquillity or do any wrongful
act that may probably occasion a breach of peace or disturb the public
tranquillity; and on this material, the SEM has to form an opinion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against such person,
requiring the person to show cause as to why he should not be ordered
to execute the bond or bail bond to keep peace, for a period not
exceeding one year.
11. The learned ASG states that there was sufficient information
received by the SEM in the form of the kalandara dated 17.10.2026 as
well as the accompanying material, on which basis the SEM had
formed an opinion and issued the Impugned Notice upon the
Petitioner. He also draws the attention of this Court to the Order dated
17.10.2026 passed by the SEM, which indicates that the SEM has
inspected the kalandara dated 17.10.2026 , considered all the other
material submitted , heard SI Vaishali Tushir and only thereafter,
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(CRL) 3342/2026 Page 7 of 46
23.10.2026 20:45
formed the opinion for proceeding under Section 126 of the BNSS,
meaning thereby, that the SEM has not just gone on hearsay but on the
basis of the documentary material produced before him. He further
contends that the material that was produced before the SEM was
sufficient to form an opinion that there is an apprehension of breach of
peace and disturbance of public tranquillity. In any event, the learned
ASG submits that the „opinion‟ formed under Section 126 of the
BNSS is completely based on the subjective satisfaction of the SEM,
which does not call for an interference by this Court under Article 226
of the Constitution of India.
12. The learned ASG further submits that the proper procedure
envisioned under Chapter IX of the BNSS is that the person against
whom the SEM proceeds under Section 126, 127, 128 or 129, would
appear in person before the SEM, where a hearing would be given to
such person to show cause as to why a bond or bail bond is not
required to be executed. Thereafter, an enquiry is conducted by the
SEM to look into the truth of the information which has been received
by the SEM, where again, such person would be given an opportunity
to show as to why a bond or bail bond is not required and after the
enquiry is completed, an order under Section 136 or Section 137 of
the BNSS, as the case may be, would be passed. He, therefore,
submits that at this stage, where only a notice under Section 126/130
of the BNSS has been issued, the Court can only look into the
presence of material and nothing beyond that. He submits that the
necessity or otherwise of giving a bond or bail bond under Section 135
of the BNSS or at the time of final order under Section 136 of the
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(CRL) 3342/2026 Page 8 of 46
23.10.2026 20:45
BNSS, is anyway subject to judicial scrutiny, which remedy is always
available to the Petitioner, and therefore, the instant Writ Petition at
this nascent stage, should not be entertained.
13. The learned ASG further states that in the event the Petitioner is
able to prove that the opinion formed by the SEM was not based on
relevant and cogent material, and that the apprehension of breach of
peace and disturbance of public tranquillity was baseless, the
Petitioner can be discharged under Section 137 of the BNSS, and
would not be required to execute any bond, or if the bond had been
already executed, the same shall be discharged, and therefore, the
present Writ Petition should not be entertained.
14. He further contends that there was a prohibitory order under
Section 163 of the BNSS issued on 24.08.2026, covering the entire
jurisdiction of the Police Station Barakhamba Road and Police Station
Tilak Marg, falling within the Sub Division of Barakhamba Road,
which also covers the Mandi House area where the Petitioner had
called for a gathering. He submits that a reading of the kalandara
dated 17.10.2026 discloses that on 16.10.2026, the Petitioner came at
about 05:10 PM at Mandi House roundabout with about 40-50
protesters and then began moving towards Barakhamba Road raising
slogans. He further highlights from the kalandara that the Petitioner
and the fellow protestors were repeatedly warned over a loudspeaker
that Section 163 of the BNSS was in force in the area and that any
kind of dharna , demonstration, procession, or any gathering of five or
more persons was unlawful and that they should disperse peacefully.
However, it is stated that the Petitioner kept moving forward and she
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(CRL) 3342/2026 Page 9 of 46
23.10.2026 20:45
was stopped by the police officials after considerable effort. He,
therefore, states that the Petitioner violated the said prohibitory order
dated 24.08.2026 issued under Section 163 of the BNSS in marching
towards Mandi House on 16.10.2026.
15. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material
on record.
16. Chapter IX of the BNSS deals with security for keeping the
peace and good behaviour. Sections 126 to 137 of the BNSS reads as
under:-
“ 126. Security for keeping peace in other cases.
(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 tranquillity 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.
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(CRL) 3342/2026 Page 10 of 46
23.10.2026 20:45
127. Security for good behaviour from persons
disseminating certain matters.
(1)When an Executive Magistrate receives
information that there is within his local
jurisdiction any person who, within or without
such jurisdiction,-
(i) either orally or in writing or in any other
manner, intentionally disseminates or attempts to
disseminate or abets the dissemination of,-
(a) any matter the publication of which is
punishable under section 152 or section 196 or
section 197 or section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023; or
(b) any matter concerning a Judge acting or
purporting to act in the discharge of his official
duties which amounts to criminal intimidation or
defamation under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023;
(ii) makes, produces, publishes or keeps for sale,
imports, exports, conveys, sells, lets to hire,
distributes, publicly exhibits or in any other
manner puts into circulation any obscene matter
such as is referred to in section 294 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,
and the Magistrate is of opinion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding, the Magistrate
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 his
good behaviour for such period, not exceeding
one year, as the Magistrate thinks fit.
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(CRL) 3342/2026 Page 11 of 46
23.10.2026 20:45
(2)No proceedings shall be taken under this
section against the editor, proprietor, printer or
publisher of any publication registered under, and
edited, printed and published in conformity with,
the rules laid down in the Press and Registration
of Books Act, 1867 (25 of 1867) with reference to
any matter contained in such publication except
by the order or under the authority of the State
Government or some officer empowered by the
State Government in this behalf.
128. Security for good behaviour from suspected
persons.
When an Executive Magistrate receives
information that there is within his local
jurisdiction a person taking precautions to
conceal his presence and that there is reason to
believe that he is doing so with a view to
committing a cognizable offence, the Magistrate
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 his
good behaviour for such period, not exceeding
one year, as the Magistrate thinks fit.
129. Security for good behaviour from habitual
offenders.
When an Executive Magistrate receives
information that there is within his local
jurisdiction a person who-
(a) is by habit a robber, house-breaker, thief, or
forger; or
(b) is by habit a receiver of stolen property
knowing the same to have been stolen; or
(c) habitually protects or harbours thieves, or
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(CRL) 3342/2026 Page 12 of 46
23.10.2026 20:45
aids in the concealment or disposal of stolen
property; or
(d) habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or
abets the commission of, the offence of
kidnapping, abduction, extortion, cheating or
mischief, or any offence punishable under
Chapter X of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,
or under section 178, section 179, section 180 or
section 181 of that Sanhita; or
(e) habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or
abets the commission of, offences, involving a
breach of the peace; or
(f) habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or
abets the commission of-
(i) any offence under one or more of the following
Acts, namely:-
(a) the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (23 of
1940);
(b) the Foreigners Act, 1946 (31 of 1946);
(c) the Employees' Provident Fund and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952);
(d) the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of
1955);
(e) the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (22 of
1955);
(f) the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962);
(g) the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (34
of 2006); or
(ii) any offence punishable under any other law
providing for the prevention of hoarding or
profiteering or of adulteration of food or drugs or
of corruption; or
g) is so desperate and dangerous as to render his
being at large without security hazardous to the
community, such Magistrate may, in the manner
hereinafter provided, require such person to show
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(CRL) 3342/2026 Page 13 of 46
23.10.2026 20:45
cause why he should not be ordered to execute a
bail bond, for his good behaviour for such period,
not exceeding three years, as the Magistrate
thinks fit.
130. Order to be made.
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.
131. Procedure in respect of person present in
Court.
If the person in respect of whom such order is
made is present in Court, it shall be read over to
him, or, if he so desires, the substance thereof
shall be explained to him.
132. Summons or warrant in case of person not
so present.
If such person is not present in Court, the
Magistrate shall issue a summons requiring him
to appear, or, when such person is in custody, a
warrant directing the officer in whose custody he
is to bring him before the Court:
Provided that whenever it appears to such
Magistrate, upon the report of a police officer or
upon other information (the substance of which
report or information shall be recorded by the
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(CRL) 3342/2026 Page 14 of 46
23.10.2026 20:45
Magistrate), that there is reason to fear the
commission of a breach of the peace, and that
such breach of the peace cannot be prevented
otherwise than by the immediate arrest of such
person, the Magistrate may at any time issue a
warrant for his arrest.
133. Copy of order to accompany summons or
warrant.
Every summons or warrant issued under section
132 shall be accompanied by a copy of the order
made under section 130, and such copy shall be
delivered by the officer serving or executing such
summons or warrant to the person served with, or
arrested under, the same.
134. Power to dispense with personal attendance.
The Magistrate may, if he sees sufficient cause,
dispense with the personal attendance of any
person called upon to show cause why he should
not be ordered to execute a bond for keeping the
peace or for good behaviour and may permit him
to appear by an advocate.
135. Inquiry as to truth of information.
(1)When an order under section 130 has been
read or explained under section 131 to a person
present in Court, or when any person appears or
is brought before a Magistrate in compliance
with, or in execution of, a summons or warrant,
issued under section 132, the Magistrate shall
proceed to inquire into the truth of the
information upon which action has been taken,
and to take such further evidence as may appear
necessary.
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(CRL) 3342/2026 Page 15 of 46
23.10.2026 20:45
(2)Such inquiry shall be made, as nearly as may
be practicable, in the manner hereinafter
prescribed for conducting trial and recording
evidence in summons-cases.
(3)After the commencement, and before the
completion, of the inquiry under sub-section (1),
the Magistrate, if he considers that immediate
measures are necessary for the prevention of a
breach of the peace or disturbance of the public
tranquillity or the commission of any offence or
for the public safety, may, for reasons to be
recorded in writing, direct the person in respect of
whom the order under section 130 has been made
to execute a bond or bail bond, for keeping the
peace or maintaining good behaviour until the
conclusion of the inquiry, and may detain him in
custody until such bond or bail bond is executed
or, in default of execution, until the inquiry is
concluded:
Provided that-
(a) no person against whom proceedings are not
being taken under section 127, section 128, or
section 129 shall be directed to execute a bond or
bail bond for maintaining good behaviour;
(b) the conditions of such bond, whether as to the
amount thereof or as to the provision of sureties
or the number thereof or the pecuniary extent of
their liability, shall not be more onerous than
those specified in the order under section 130.
(4)For the purposes of this section the fact that a
person is a habitual offender or is so desperate
and dangerous as to render his being at large
without security hazardous to the community may
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(CRL) 3342/2026 Page 16 of 46
23.10.2026 20:45
be proved by evidence of general repute or
otherwise.
(5)Where two or more persons have been
associated together in the matter under inquiry,
they may be dealt with in the same or separate
inquiries as the Magistrate shall think just.
(6)The inquiry under this section shall be
completed within a period of six months from the
date of its commencement, and if such inquiry is
not so completed, the proceedings under this
Chapter shall, on the expiry of the said period,
stand terminated unless, for special reasons to be
recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise
directs:
Provided that where any person has been kept in
detention pending such inquiry, the proceeding
against that person, unless terminated earlier,
shall stand terminated on the expiry of a period of
six months of such detention.
(7)Where any direction is made under sub-section
(6) permitting the continuance of proceedings, the
Sessions Judge may, on an application made to
him by the aggrieved party, vacate such direction
if he is satisfied that it was not based on any
special reason or was perverse.
136. Order to give security.
If, upon such inquiry, it is proved that it is
necessary for keeping the peace or maintaining
good behaviour, as the case may be, that the
person in respect of whom the inquiry is made
should execute a bond or bail bond, the
Magistrate shall make an order accordingly:
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(CRL) 3342/2026 Page 17 of 46
23.10.2026 20:45
Provided that-
(a) no person shall be ordered to give security of
a nature different from, or of an amount larger
than, or for a period longer than, that specified in
the order made under section 130;
(b) the amount of every bond or bail bond shall be
fixed with due regard to the circumstances of the
case and shall not be excessive;
(c) when the person in respect of whom the
inquiry is made is a child, the bond shall be
executed only by his sureties.
137. Discharge of person informed against.
If, on an inquiry under section 135, it is not
proved that it is necessary for keeping the peace
or maintaining good behaviour, as the case may
be, that the person in respect of whom the inquiry
is made, should execute a bond, the Magistrate
shall make an entry on the record to that effect,
and if such person is in custody only for the
purposes of the inquiry, shall release him, or, if
such person is not in custody, shall discharge
him.”
17. The scheme of Chapter IX of the BNSS indicates that when
acting under Section 126, 127, 128 or 129 of the BNSS, the SEM
deems it necessary to require a person to show cause under such
section(s), he shall make an order in writing under Section 130 of the
BNSS, setting forth the substance of the information received, the
amount of bonds to be executed, the term for which it has to be in
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(CRL) 3342/2026 Page 18 of 46
23.10.2026 20:45
force and the number of sureties, after considering the sufficiency and
fitness of sureties.
18. Section 126 of the BNSS gives the power to the Executive
Magistrate to issue a show cause notice to any person who is likely to
commit a breach of peace or disturb public tranquillity or to do any
wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of peace or disturb
public tranquillity, as to why he should not be ordered to execute a
bond or bail bond for keeping the peace for a period not exceeding one
year.
19. Section 127 deals with the power of the Executive Magistrate
who receives information that any person within his local jurisdiction
who is either orally or in writing or in any other manner, intentionally
disseminates or attempting to disseminate or abets the dissemination
of any matter, the publication which is punishable under Section 152
or Section 196 or Section 197 or Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter called as „ BNS ‟); or any matter concerning
a Judge acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official
duties which amounts to criminal intimidation or defamation under the
BNS; or makes, produces, publishes or keeps for sale, imports,
exports, conveys, sells, lets to hire, distributes, publicly exhibits or in
any other manner puts into circulation any obscene matter referred to
in Section 294 of the BNS to show cause as to why he should not be
ordered to execute a bond or bail bond, for his good behaviour for
such period, not exceeding one year, as the Magistrate thinks fit.
20. Section 128 of the BNSS gives the power to the Executive
Magistrate who receives information that a person is taking
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(CRL) 3342/2026 Page 19 of 46
23.10.2026 20:45
precautions to conceal his presence and that he has reason to believe
that such person has concealed his presence with a view to commit a
cognizable offence. The Executive Magistrate can issue a show cause
notice to the said person as to why he should not be ordered to execute
a bond or bail bond for his good behaviour for such period, not
exceeding one year, as the Executive Magistrate thinks fit.
21. Section 129 of the BNSS deals with the power of the Executive
Magistrate to issue a show cause notice when he receives information
that a person is in the habit of committing offences mentioned in the
provisions given thereunder, then such person can be required to show
cause as to why he should not be ordered to execute a bail bond, for
his good behaviour for such period, not exceeding three years, as the
Executive Magistrate thinks fit with security for good behaviour from
habitual offenders.
22. The only differentiating factor between Sections 126, 127 and
128 of the BNSS to that of Section 129 of the BNSS is that in Section
129 of the BNSS, the bail bond is for a period of three years, while in
Sections 126, 127 and 128 of the BNSS, the bail bond is one year. The
show cause notice under Section 126, 127, 128 or 129 of the BNSS is
therefore, based on the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the
Magistrate on the material/information received by him.
23. Thereafter, when such person appears before the SEM under
Section 131 of the BNSS, the order issued Section 130 is read over to
him and if he so desires, the substance thereof is explained as well. In
the event that such person does not appear before the SEM, summons
or warrant, as the case may be, requiring the person to appear is issued
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(CRL) 3342/2026 Page 20 of 46
23.10.2026 20:45
by the SEM, along with the copy of the Section 130 Order, as per
Sections 132 and 133 of the BNSS. At the same time, Section 134
empowers the SEM, if he sees sufficient cause, to dispense with
personal attendance of such person and permit the person to appear
through an advocate. Section 135 of the BNSS inter alia provides for
enquiry by the SEM into the truth of the information on which basis
action has been initiated against such person, the requirement or
otherwise of execution of a bond or bail bond during pendency of the
enquiry for keeping the peace or maintaining good behaviour and the
period for completion of the enquiry. Thereafter, upon the conclusion
of the enquiry, if it is proved that it is necessary for maintaining peace
or good behaviour, the SEM, under Section 136 of the BNSS shall
order such person to give security. On the other hand, such person
shall be discharged under Section 137 of the BNSS if it is not proved
upon enquiry, that it is necessary for such person to execute a bond or
bail bond for maintaining peace or good behaviour.
24. Thus, it is evident that there are sufficient checks and balance
given in Chapter IX of the BNSS, where a person to whom a show
cause notice has been issued under Section 126, 127, 128 or 129 of the
BNSS, is given more than one opportunity to defend himself as to
why he should not be asked to furnish a bond or bail bond for
maintaining good behaviour.
25. It is well settled that proceedings under Chapter IX of the BNSS
are preventive and not punitive in nature [Ref: Prakash Chand
Sachdeva v. State, (1994) 1 SCC 471 ], and that they are based on the
subjective satisfaction of the SEM, which is based on information
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(CRL) 3342/2026 Page 21 of 46
23.10.2026 20:45
received regarding apprehension of breach of peace and disturbance of
public tranquillity.
26. A combined reading of Sections 126 and 130 of the BNSS
postulates that there has to be some information; that substance of
information must show that such person is likely to commit breach of
peace or disturb the public tranquillity or do a wrongful act that would
probably occasion a breach of peace or disturb the public tranquillity;
and if the opinion of the SEM based on such information is that there
are sufficient grounds for proceeding under Chapter IX of the BNSS,
then he will issue a Show Cause Notice as to why such person should
not be ordered to execute a bond or a bail bond for such period not
exceeding one year, as the SEM deems fit. Since the purport of
Chapter IX of the BNSS is preventive in nature and not punitive, the
object of the provisions is to prevent breach of peace and take such
preventive steps to ensure that peace and tranquillity in the area is not
disturbed. As such, the aim is not to take action after an incident has
happened, but to prevent such an incident from happening. Therefore,
at the stage where only a notice has been issued, enquiry of the Writ
Court will be only be limited to examine as to whether there was any
material/information before the SEM at all and whether the SEM
applied its mind on such material/information received by him, for
proceeding under Chapter IX of the BNSS. The Court, at this stage,
does not sit on the arm-chair of the SEM to decide as to whether the
material/information is sufficient or not and unless it is a case of nil
material, which would shock the conscience of the Court, the Writ
Court at the stage of issuance of a show cause notice, will not
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(CRL) 3342/2026 Page 22 of 46
23.10.2026 20:45
interfere.
27. The High Courts, time and again, have been warned by the
Apex Court to not hold an enquiry before the enquiry by the authority
takes place, especially in cases of preventive actions by the State. In a
case emanating under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973,
and Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, the Apex Court in
Special Director & Anr. v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghoushe & Anr., (2004) 3
SCC 440 , while dealing with the show cause notice, observed as
under:-
“ 5 This Court in a large number of cases has
deprecated the practice of the High Courts
entertaining writ petitions questioning legality of
the show-cause notices stalling enquiries as
proposed and retarding investigative process to
find actual facts with the participation and in the
presence of the parties. Unless the High Court is
satisfied that the show-cause notice was totally
non est in the eye of the law for absolute want of
jurisdiction of the authority to even investigate
into facts, writ petitions should not be entertained
for the mere asking and as a matter of routine,
and the writ petitioner should invariably be
directed to respond to the show-cause notice and
take all stands highlighted in the writ petition.
Whether the show-cause notice was founded on
any legal premises, is a jurisdictional issue which
can even be urged by the recipient of the notice
and such issues also can be adjudicated by the
authority issuing the very notice initially, before
the aggrieved could approach the court. Further,
when the court passes an interim order it should
be careful to see that the statutory functionaries
specially and specifically constituted for the
purpose are not denuded of powers and authority
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(CRL) 3342/2026 Page 23 of 46
23.10.2026 20:45
to initially decide the matter and ensure that
ultimate relief which may or may not be finally
granted in the writ petition is not accorded to the
writ petitioner even at the threshold by the interim
protection granted.
6. In the instant case, the High Court has not
indicated any reason while giving interim
protection. Though, while passing interim orders,
it is not necessary to elaborately deal with the
merits, it is certainly desirable and proper for the
High Court to indicate the reasons which have
weighed with it in granting such an extraordinary
relief in the form of an interim protection. This,
admittedly, has not been done in the case at
hand.”
28. In another case arising under the Central Excise Tariff Act,
1985, and Central Excise Act, 1944, the parameters for interference by
a writ court at the stage of issuance of a show cause notice, the Apex
Court in Union of India & Anr. v. Vicco Laboratories, (2007) 13 SCC
270, has observed as under:-
“ 31. Normally, the writ court should not interfere
at the stage of issuance of show-cause notice by
the authorities. In such a case, the parties get
ample opportunity to put forth their contentions
before the authorities concerned and to satisfy the
authorities concerned about the absence of case
for proceeding against the person against whom
the show-cause notices have been issued.
Abstinence from interference at the stage of
issuance of show-cause notice in order to relegate
the parties to the proceedings before the
authorities concerned is the normal rule.
However, the said rule is not without exceptions.
Where a show-cause notice is issued either
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(CRL) 3342/2026 Page 24 of 46
23.10.2026 20:45
without jurisdiction or in an abuse of process of
law, certainly in that case, the writ court would
not hesitate to interfere even at the stage of
issuance of show-cause notice. The interference at
the show-cause notice stage should be rare and
not in a routine manner. Mere assertion by the
writ petitioner that notice was without jurisdiction
and/or abuse of process of law would not suffice.
It should be prima facie established to be so.
Where factual adjudication would be necessary,
interference is ruled out.”
29. The above paragraph has been quoted and relied on by the Apex
Court in a recent Judgment in J. Sri Nisha v. Special Director,
Adjudicating Authority, Directorate of Enforcement, (2026) SCC
OnLine SC 517 , wherein it has been observed as under:-
“ 32. Thus, a prima facie satisfaction was
recorded by the Competent Authority that there
was no evidence of the appellants being involved
in foreign security transactions having any value.
Consequently, it has to be taken that there did not
exist the “reasons to believe” referred to in Sub-
section (1) of Section 37A. These findings
definitely support the cause of the appellants
herein. It is not in dispute that the appeal
preferred by the Department against the order
rd
dated 3 February, 2021, is still pending
consideration. The Division Bench of the High
Court, while deciding the writ appeal, observed
that the writ petition against the SCN is not
entertainable. We feel that the said observation
may not be correct in every situation. This Court
has consistently held that although ordinarily a
writ petition against an SCN may not be
entertained, however, the said proposition is not
an inviolable rule. Interference at the stage of
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(CRL) 3342/2026 Page 25 of 46
23.10.2026 20:45
SCN is permissible in exceptional circumstances,
such as where the notice suffers from patent lack
of jurisdiction, reflects non-application of mind, is
issued with a pre-determined or premeditated
approach, amounts to an abuse of the process of
law, or results in a violation of the principles of
natural justice. In such situations, the High Court
would be justified in exercising its jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution to prevent
manifest injustice…”
30. What flows from above is that this that in any matter where the
liberty of an individual is involved, the Writ Courts are stricter and
more careful than in a case of domestic enquiry.
31. The material which has been handed over by the
Respondent/State indicates that on 17.10.2026, before issuance of the
Impugned Notice, two orders were passed by the SEM. The Order
dated 17.10.2026 is reproduced as under:-
“ 17.10.2026 Today a Kalandra U/S 126/169
BNSS is submitted by IO/SI Vaishali Tushir, P.S.
B.K. Road. After inspection of kalandra, the is
accepted/Admitted by this court. Notice U/S
126/130 BNSS be issued to respondent and sent to
police station B.K. Road for compliance. Put up
on 19.10.2026.”
32. A perusal of the above Order indicates that the same was passed
on the basis of kalandara dated 17.10.2026 produced before the SEM,
along with the other supportive material. Along with the kalandara
and the supportive material, the submission of SI Vaishali Tushir was
also recorded by the SEM. The Order dated 17.10.2026 which records
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(CRL) 3342/2026 Page 26 of 46
23.10.2026 20:45
the proceedings reads as under:-
“ORDER
SHO/B.K.Road. New Delhi has sent a Kalandra
u/s 126/169 BNSS through I.O./SI Vaishali
Tushir. I have carefully gone through the police
report/kalandra which shows that Neha Bora D/o
Hoshiyar Singh R/o H. No. 25, Meena Bagh,
Maulana Azad Road, Delhi, created nuisance by
shouting loudly in protest at round about Mandi
House and she has already been involved in
repeated protest related activity in and around
Jantar Mantra, New Delhi, despite prohibitory
orders 163 BNSS. She instigated people to
participate in unauthorized demonstration at
Central Park, Connaught Place which is not a
designated protest site and also hoist the national
flag without obtaining valid permission. There is
every likelihood of apprehension of breach of
public peace and tranquility within the
jurisdiction of this court. I.O/SI Vaishali Tushir is
present and briefs the facts of Kalandra.
From the reason recorded above. I have reached
to the conclusion that there is sufficient grounds
to initiate proceedings against the respondent u/s-
126/169 BNSS. I, therefore, order that notice u/s-
126/130 BNSS be given to the respondent asking
him as to why she should not be required to
execute Personal/Surety Bond in the sum of
Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to
keeping peace for a period of one year. Notice is
being issued for appearance. The case has been
fixed for 19.10.2026.”
33. The kalandara dated 17.10.2026 along with all the names of the
witnesses is also reproduced as under:-
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(CRL) 3342/2026 Page 27 of 46
23.10.2026 20:45
“ 2. Act/Section
1. The Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita
(BNSS), 2023-Section 126
2. The Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita
(BNSS), 2023-Section 169
3. Brief Facts
The brief kalandra is as follows: yesterday, on
16/10/2026, the SHO/BK Road and other police
staff were deployed at the Mandi House
roundabout to prevent violation of Section 163
BNSS during a CJP protest to be held there.
Section 163 BNSS was in force in the New Delhi
District area. At about 05:10 PM, Neha Bora
(AISA President) arrived at the Mandi House
roundabout with about 40-50-protesters and from
there began moving towards Barakhamba Road
raising slogans. They were repeatedly warned
over a loudspeaker that Section 163 BNSS was in
force in the area, that any kind of dharna,
demonstration or procession, or any gathering of
five or more persons, was unlawful there, and that
they should disperse peacefully. However, Neha
Bora (AISA President) continued to incite people
and kept moving forward, inciting the public and
her supporters while raising slogans such as
"Reclaim Jantar Mantar", "Gyanesh Kumar,
resign" and "We do not accept any Section 163
BNSS, nor do we accept any such law." Her
supporters/protesters were stopped by the police
after considerable effort.
Neha Bora D/o Hoshiyar Singh has for quite some
time been continuously holding demonstrations at
Jantar Mantar, New Delhi, and the surrounding
area despite Section 163 BNSS being in force, and
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(CRL) 3342/2026 Page 28 of 46
23.10.2026 20:45
has been involved in violations of Section 163
BNSS, in which principal members of the CJP
have also taken part. Neha Bora has been
involved in provoking and inciting people through
her inflammatory language and social media
posts, and several criminal cases have previously
been registered against her in this regard, the
details of which are attached. Neha Bora had
called upon her supporters and members of the
CJP to gather at Connaught Place on 16.10.2026
and hoist the Tiranga [national flag], for which
no valid permission had been obtained. The police
also had information and an apprehension that
some anti-social elements might join her
supporters and cause harm to life and property.
Connaught Place is a highly commercial area
where entry and exit routes are limited. When a
crowd gathers, movement to other areas quickly
becomes obstructed, and in an emergency it
becomes difficult for people to get out. If the main
roads nearby are closed, traffic in the entire area
is likely to be affected. There are a large number
of showrooms, hotels, banks, offices and vendors
in this area. Any disruption in the evenings or on
weekends can affect the livelihood of traders and
their employees. The livelihood of lakhs of traders
and their employees in this area depends on its
peaceful and orderly functioning.
Lakhs of people pass through Rajiv Chowk Metro
Station every day. In such circumstances, the
gathering of an additional crowd creates a risk of
traffic jams and stampede-like situations. This
area is also located near Parliament and the
Central Secretariat. Because of old buildings and
narrow lanes, the movement of ambulances and
fire brigades is also likely to be affected. It is also
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(CRL) 3342/2026 Page 29 of 46
23.10.2026 20:45
noteworthy that Connaught Place is not a notified
protest site.
For the above reasons, prohibitory orders under
Section 163 BNSS are in force in the area, and
their violation may attract legal action. Incidents
of violence and damage to property have also
occurred at previous events of AISA and CJP.
Neha Bora had already been informed of all the
above facts and circumstances, and it had been
clearly explained to her that any kind of
demonstration, procession, rally or use of a
loudspeaker in and around Connaught Place is
prohibited.
It is also noteworthy that, even before the incident
of 16-10-2026, Neha Bora has been detained
several times under Section 65 of the Delhi Police
Act to prevent her from breaching the peace.
Despite various FIRs having been registered,
Neha Bora is not willing to cooperate with the
police in maintaining law and order under any
circumstances and keeps inciting people to
unlawful assembly and demonstration. There is
every likelihood that Neha Bora may, in the near
future, again attempt to go with her associates to
Jantar Mantar, Connaught Place and other
prohibited places in New Delhi and try to provoke
people. There is therefore a serious apprehension
of breach of peace and law and order in the area,
and a threat may arise to government property
and to the life and property of the general public.
It is also necessary to mention the past conduct
and activities of the respondent. She has from time
to time openly violated the law and has
continuously incited her supporters and the
general public to violate the law. She has been
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(CRL) 3342/2026 Page 30 of 46
23.10.2026 20:45
provoking the general public with the aim of
creating distrust in rules, laws and prescribed
procedures and of spreading anarchy. Therefore,
in view of all the above facts and circumstances,
the past conduct of the respondent Neha Bora, her
previous involvement in such activities, and the
information received that she had called on her
supporters to gather and demonstrate at
Connaught Place on 16.10.2026 without valid
permission, a serious apprehension arose that if
timely and necessary action is not taken against
the respondent, she may in the near future again
go to prohibited places, gather people, incite them
to violate the law and breach the peace and law
and order of the area. This may endanger the life
and property of the general public and
government and public property, and a cognizable
offence may be committed.
All the above facts, circumstances and the
possible law-and-order situation were brought to
the notice of senior officers, and the entire
situation was placed before them. As directed by
the senior officers and in accordance with the
rules, action under Section 126/169 BNSS against
the respondent was found necessary to prevent the
commission of a possible cognizable offence and
to maintain public peace and law and order.
Therefore, the necessary documents and kalandra
relating to the preventive action taken against the
respondent Neha Bora D/o Hoshiyar Singh, R/o
20, Khetarpal Enclave, Amritsar, Punjab, have
been prepared in accordance with the rules and
are being submitted before the Hon'ble Court. The
respondent may be bound down for the highest
possible amount [literally "heaviest possible fine
amount"; in context, the bond amount]. Sir, it is
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(CRL) 3342/2026 Page 31 of 46
23.10.2026 20:45
prayed that the necessary orders may kindly be
passed in accordance with the rules.
4. List o Witnesses
S. No. Witness Name Address
1 SI Vaishali Tushir Present Address: PS
Barakhamba Road,
Barakhama Road, New
Delhi, Delhi, India
Permanent Address: PS
Barakhamba Road,
Barakhama Road, New
Delhi, Delhi, India
2 WCT Narangi Present Address: PS
Barakhamba Road,
Barakhama Road, New
Delhi, Delhi, India
Permanent Address: PS
Barakhamba Road,
Barakhama Road, New
Delhi, Delhi, India
3 WCT Sunita Present Address: PS
Barakhamba Road,
Barakhama Road, New
Delhi, Delhi, India
Permanent Address: PS
Barakhamba Road,
Barakhama Road, New
Delhi, Delhi, India
34. Along with the kalandara, General Diary entry being GD No.
19A dated 17.10.2026 regarding information under Section 65 of the
Delhi Police Act, 1978, the General Diary entry being GD No. 20A
dated 17.10.2026 recorded in Police Station Barakhamba Road under
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(CRL) 3342/2026 Page 32 of 46
23.10.2026 20:45
Section 126/169 of the BNSS, General Diary entry being GD
No.111A dated 25.09.2026 has been recorded at Police Station
Parliament Street, regarding information under Section 65 of the Delhi
Police Act, the details of various FIRs against the Petitioner, were also
produced before the SEM. The kalandara captures the instances given
in the three general diary entries.
35. A perusal of the material on record shows that there are as many
as six (06) FIRs, apart from the information under Section 65 of the
Delhi Police Act, which finds mention of the Petitioner. These FIRs
have been registered in Police Stations Parliament Street, Barakhamba
Road and Connaught Place. Moreover, a perusal of the General Diary
entries also shows the incidents which have taken place at various
places.
36. Though this Court has also been handed over other material
regarding the acts of the Petitioner which states that there are videos,
they are not being referred to because it is not clear as to whether this
material was produced before the SEM when he formed an opinion to
proceed against the Petitioner. Suffice it to say that in the opinion of
this Court, there was sufficient material before the Magistrate before
action has been taken under Section 126 of the BNSS.
37. The Impugned Notice mentions the nuisance created by the
Petitioner at Mandi House and instigation of people to participate in
an unauthorized demonstration at Central Park, Connaught Place,
which is not a designated protest site. It is apposite to note that the
scheme of Chapter IX of the BNSS does not require the show cause
notice to read like a judgment, but merely set out the substance of the
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(CRL) 3342/2026 Page 33 of 46
23.10.2026 20:45
information received by the SEM and the opinion formed thereof,
which is reflected in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Impugned Notice. The
satisfaction of the SEM regarding breach of peace in the area where
the Petitioner was detained and where she was urging people to join
her protest is a commercial area, receiving very high footfall from
office goers, and there are important roads connecting the heart of the
city to various other areas. There are a large number of hotels, banks,
offices, vendors and therefore, it cannot be said that there was no
material at all before the SEM before proceeding against the Petitioner
under Sections 126 and Section 130 of the BNSS. This further gets
fortified when prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS had
been passed covering the said area, i.e., Mandi House.
38. At this juncture, this Court deems it necessary to direct the
Respondent/State to provide all the material to the Petitioner on which
reliance will be placed at the time of enquiry and on which basis the
Impugned Notice has been issued, when the Petitioner appears before
the SEM. The SEM is also directed to ensure that the principles of
natural justice are not violated before passing any order directing
furnishing of a bond.
39. A bare reading of the Impugned Notice shows that it is a
composite notice under Sections 126 and 130 of the BNSS. In this
regard, this Court deems it pertinent to refer to the following
observations of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in the
Judgment of Farhan Nasir Khan v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) SCC
OnLine Bom 1777 :-
“ 9 . To put it simply, the requirement of law is that
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(CRL) 3342/2026 Page 34 of 46
23.10.2026 20:45
the Magistrate has to form an opinion in writing
contemplated by section 111 of the Criminal
Procedure Code and thereafter proceed to issue a
show cause notice as contemplated by section 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 section 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.”
40. This Court is aligned with the view taken by the Full Bench of
the Bombay High Court in the above Judgment, which lays down that
there need not be a separate show cause notice under Section 126 and
a separate order under Section 130 of the BNSS, if the requirements of
both the provisions are met with in a common notice.
41. Coming to the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the
Petitioner that Mandi House, where the Petitioner was protesting was
not covered under the prohibitory order issued under Section 163 of
the BNSS and therefore the Impugned Notice is vitiated as being
without any substance, this Court has already noted above, based on
the material shown by the Respondent/State that a prohibitory order
dated 24.08.2026 was issued Section 163 of the BNSS by the
Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sub-Division, Barakhamba Road,
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(CRL) 3342/2026 Page 35 of 46
23.10.2026 20:45
New Delhi, covering the entire jurisdiction of the Police Station
Barakhamba Road and Tilak Marg falling within Sub-Division of
Barakhamba Road, which also covers the Mandi House area. As such,
this argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner cannot
be accepted.
42. Reliance was also placed by the learned Senior Counsel for the
Petitioner on the Judgment dated 25.06.2026 passed by the High Court
of Orrisa in Sumitra Dhal v. State of Odisha, CRL. M.C. 1410/2026
to highlight the facts in that case, which in the opinion of this Court,
are purely distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Paragraph
14 of the said Judgment reads as under:-
“ 14 . In the present case, a bare reading of the
impugned notice reveals that it merely states that
information has been received regarding a “law
and order situation in the locality” and that
proceedings are initiated for “keeping peace and
tranquillity in the locality”, followed by a
direction to show cause as to why a bond
should not be executed. However, the notice
does not disclose even in summary form the
substance of the information received, the nature
of alleged incidents, or any basic factual
foundation leading to apprehension of breach of
peace. ”
43. Similarly, the Judgment dated 04.04.2025 passed by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court in Anuj Suhag v. State (NCT of
Delhi), W.P.(CRL) 1568/2016, wherein the SEM has passed an order
only on the basis of a kalandara which contained a solitary incident.
In the opinion of this Court, even these facts are distinguishable from
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(CRL) 3342/2026 Page 36 of 46
23.10.2026 20:45
the facts of the present Petition, wherein there are a number of General
Diary entries, a number of FIRs alongside the prevalent prohibitory
orders under Section 163 of the BNSS which were issued by the State.
44. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Asha Pant v. State, 2008
SCC OnLine Del 367, after placing reliance on another Judgment
passed by this Court in Tavinder Kumar v. State, 1989 SCC OnLine
Del 380, has observed as under:-
“ 17. This Court in Tavinder Kumar v. State,
(1990) 40 DLT 210 also emphasized the need for
caution while exercising the powers under Section
107 and 111 CrPC After noticing the prevailing
law on the topic and analyzing the scope of the
powers under the above provisions, this Court
observed as under:
“(9) In nutshell the above provisions, of law show
that on receipt of the information in the present
case kalandra given by the police, the Magistrate
was bound to record his opinion as contemplated
by Section 107 and thereafter was to prepare the
notice under Section 111 which must contain the
substance of the information so received and was
bound to send the copy of such notice along with
the summons to the person concerned. The stage
for passing any order under Section 116(3) could
arise only after the summons and notice as
required by Sections 111 and 113 had been served
on the petitioners and the enquiry had
commenced. It is really surprising that the
learned Magistrate had got ready an order under
Section 116(3) of the Code before, even be had
applied his mind regarding holding of inquiry or
before even commencement of the inquiry. This is
not a judicial approach expected of a judicial
officer who is bound to decide such matters in a
judicial manner.”
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(CRL) 3342/2026 Page 37 of 46
23.10.2026 20:45
18. The sum total of the above discussion is that in
every case, it would be incumbent upon the SEM
to follow the steps envisaged in Section 107
strictly in accordance with the procedure outlined
in the provisions of the CrPC set out thereafter.
Such steps should be preceded by the formation of
an opinion in writing by an Magistrate which
should be discernable when the decision is
challenged in the Court. Such formation of the
opinion should, normally, be based on some
preliminary enquiry that should be made by an
SEM to justify the formation of an opinion. Of
course this cannot be straitjacketed since there
may be cases where an SEM may to form an
opinion rightaway to prevent the breach of peace
or public tranquility. However, that should be the
exception and not the rule. For instance, as in the
present case, where the dispute is essentially
between the neighbors in a property, or between a
landlord and tenant residing in the same
premises, the notice under Section 107 CrPC
should not be issued only upon a perusal of the
Kalandara prepared by the police. Such a
mechanical exercise without the SEM forming an
independent opinion on the basis of some sort of a
preliminary enquiry would render the exercise of
the power vulnerable to being invalidated.”
45. All the judgments on which the learned Senior Counsel for the
Petitioner places reliance to substantiate that the proceedings initiated
by the SEM to show cause as to why the Petitioner should not be
called upon to furnish a personal bond for maintenance of peace
cannot be based only on kalandaras, are distinguishable. Proceedings
under Chapter IX of the BNSS are initiated by the SEM not on the
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(CRL) 3342/2026 Page 38 of 46
23.10.2026 20:45
number of incidents, but the nature of the act and the attendant
circumstances, which would aid the SEM to consider whether there is
an apprehension that there is a propensity of breach of peace by such
person. All this is purely based on the subjective satisfaction of the
SEM. Even one incident is sufficient for initiating proceedings under
Chapter IX of the BNSS, if the circumstances so suggest that there is
an apprehension that such a person will indulge in further incidents of
the same nature which can breach peace and disturb public
tranquillity. In the present case, it has been recorded that the Petitioner
has breached the orders under Section 163 of the BNSS despite being
warned. This Court is not commenting further on the facts as it will
adversely affect the rights of the Petitioner and the Respondent/State,
but is only making this observation to consider as to whether there
was sufficient material for the SEM to arrive at a subjective
satisfaction to proceed under Chapter IX of the BNSS.
46. In the opinion of this Court, the SEM in the present case, has
duly examined the information received by him, including the three
(03) general diary entries along with kalandara dated 17.10.2026 and
examined the three (03) witnesses, which would satisfy the
requirements under Sections 126 and 130 of the BNSS. It is not
necessary that the SEM has to investigate like a fact-finding authority
while forming an opinion regarding apprehension of breach of peace
under Chapter IX of the BNSS which is preventive and not punitive in
nature.
47. As stated earlier, this case is only at the stage of show cause
notice where this Court cannot substitute its conclusion to the one
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(CRL) 3342/2026 Page 39 of 46
23.10.2026 20:45
arrived at by the SEM on the basis of material before him. The present
case is not based merely on hearsay material, as contended by the
learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, but is also based on the
kalandara dated 17.10.2026, which consists of the three (03) general
diary entries registered at different Police Stations pertaining to
different dates and events. As such, this Court cannot sit in the arm-
chair of the SEM to test the subjective satisfaction of the sufficiency
of material and as to whether the opinion has been correctly been
arrived at by the SEM or not.
48. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance
on the Judgment rendered by a five Judges Bench of the Apex Court
in Madhu Limaye v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Monghyr, (1970) 3
SCC 746 . Paragraph 42 and 43 of the said Judgment reads as under:-
“ 42. In our opinion the words of the section are
quite clear. As said by Straight J. in Emperor v.
Babua, [ILR 6 All 132] the order under Section
112 is on hearsay but the inquiry under Section
117 is to ascertain the truth of the necessary
information. Sub-section (1) contemplates an
immediate inquiry into the truth of the
information. It is pending the completion of the
inquiry that an interim bond can be asked for if
immediate measures are necessary, and in default
it is necessary to put the person in custody.
Therefore, as the liberty of a person is involved,
and that person is being proceeded against on
information and suspicion, it is necessary to put a
strict construction upon the powers of Magistrate.
The facts must be of definite character. In Nafar
Chandra Pal v. King Emperor [28 CWR 23] there
was only a petition and a report and these were
not found sufficient material. In some of the cases
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(CRL) 3342/2026 Page 40 of 46
23.10.2026 20:45
before us no effort was made by the Magistrate to
inquire the truth of the allegations. The
Magistrate adjourned the case from day to day
and yet asked for an interim bond. This makes the
proceedings entirely one-sided. It cannot be
described as an inquiry within an inquiry as has
been said in some cases. Some inquiry has to be
made before the bond can be ordered. We,
therefore, approve of those cases in which it has
been laid down that some inquiry should be made
before action is taken to ask for an interim bond
or placing the person in custody in default. In an
old case reported in A.D. Dunne v. Hemchandra,
[(1869) 12 WR (Cr) 60] a Full Bench of the
Calcutta High Court went into the matter. The
case arose before the present Code of Criminal
Procedure and, therefore, there was no provision
for an interim bond. But what Sir Barnes
Peacock, C.J., said applies to the changed law
also not only with regard to the ultimate order but
also to the interim order for a bond. The section
even as it is drafted today is hedged in with
proper safeguards and it would be moving too far
away from the guarantee of freedom, if the view
were allowed to prevail that without any inquiry
into the truth of the information sufficient to make
out a prima facie case a person is to be put in
jeopardy of detention. A definite finding is
required that immediate steps are necessary. The
order must be one which can be made into a final
order unless something to the contrary is
established. Therefore it is not open to a
Magistrate to adjourn the case and in the interval
to send a person to jail if he fails to furnish a
bond. If this were the law a bond could always be
insisted upon before even the inquiry began and
that is neither the sense of the law nor the
wording or arrangement of the sections already
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(CRL) 3342/2026 Page 41 of 46
23.10.2026 20:45
noticed.
43. The power which is conferred under this
Chapter is distinguished from the power of
detention by executive action under Article 22 of
the Constitution. Although the order to execute a
bond, issued before an offence is committed, has
the appearance of an administrative order, in
reality it is judicial in character. Primarily the
provision enables the Magistrate to require the
execution of a bond and not to detain the person.
Detention results only on default of execution of
such bond. It is, therefore, not apposite to
characterise the provision as a law for detention
contemplated by Article 22. The safeguards are
therefore different. The person sought to he bound
over has rights which the trial of summons case
confers on an accused. The order is also capable
of being questioned in superior courts. For this
reason, at every step the law requires the
Magistrate to state his reasons in writing. It
would make his action purely administrative if he
were to pass the order for an in- terim bond
without entering upon the inquiry and atleast
prima facie inquiring into the truth of the
information on which the order calling upon the
person to show cause is based. Neither the scheme
of the chapter nor the scheme of Section 117 can
bear such an interpretation. We accordingly, hold
in the case of Madhu Limaye (Writ Petition 307 of
1970 — Madhu Limaye v. Ved Murti that as the
case was simply adjourned from time to time and
there was no inquiry before remanding him to
custody his detention was illegal. We may now
briefly notice the remaining sections of the
Chapter.”
49. Per contra, the learned ASG places reliance on Paragraphs 32,
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(CRL) 3342/2026 Page 42 of 46
23.10.2026 20:45
33, 35 and 36 of the said Judgment which are reproduced as under:-
“ 32. The gist of Section 107 may now be given. It
enables certain specified classes of Magistrates to
make an order calling upon a person to show
cause why he should not be ordered to execute a
bond, with or without sureties for keeping the
peace for such period not exceeding one year as
the Magistrate thinks fit to fix. The condition of
taking action is that the Magistrate is informed
and he is of opinion that there is sufficient ground
for proceeding that a person is likely to commit a
breach of the peace or disturb the public
tranquilly or to do any wrongful act that may
probably occasion a breach of the peace or
disturb the public tranquillity. The Magistrate can
proceed if the person is within his jurisdiction or
the place of the apprehended breach of the peace
or disturbance is within the local limits of his
jurisdiction. The section goes on to empower even
a Magistrate not empowered to take action, to
record his reason for acting, and then to order the
arrest of the person (if not already in custody or
before the court) with a view to sending him
before a Magistrate empowered to deal with the
case, together with a copy of his reasons. The
Magistrate before whom such a person is sent
may in his discretion detain such person in
custody pending further action by him.
33. The section is aimed at persons who cause a
reasonable apprehension of conduct likely to lead
to a breach of the peace or disturbance of the
public tranquillity. This is an instance of
preventive justice which the courts are intended to
administer. This provision like the preceding one
is in aid of orderly society and seeks to nip in the
bud conduct subversive of the peace and public
tranquillity. For this purpose Magistrates are
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(CRL) 3342/2026 Page 43 of 46
23.10.2026 20:45
invested with large judicial discretionary powers
for the preservation of public peace and order.
Therefore the justification for such provisions is
claimed by the State to be in the function of the
State which embraces not only the punishment of
offenders but, as far as possible, the prevention of
offences.
xxx
35. We have seen the provisions of Section 107.
That section says that action is to be taken „in the
manner hereinafter provided‟ and this clearly
indicates that it is not open to a Magistrate in
such a case to depart from the procedure to any
substantial extent. This is very salutary because
the liberty of the person is involved and the law is
rightly solicitous, that this liberty should only be
curtailed according to its own procedure and not
according to the whim of the Magistrate
concerned. It behoves us, therefore, to emphasise
the safeguards built into the procedure because
from there will arise the consideration of the
reasonableness of the restrictions in the interest of
public order or in the interest of the general
public.
36. The procedure begins with Section 112. It
requires that the Magistrate acting under Section
107 shall make an order in writing, setting forth
the substance of the information received, the
amount of the bond, the term for which it is to be
in force and the number, character and class of
sureties (if any) required. Since the person to be
proceeded against has to show cause, it is but
natural that he must know the grounds for
apprehending a breach of the peace or
disturbance of the public tranquillity at his hands.
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(CRL) 3342/2026 Page 44 of 46
23.10.2026 20:45
Although the section speaks of the “substance of
the information” it does not mean that the order
should not be full. It may not repeat the
information bodily but it must give proper notice
of who was moved the Magistrate to take the
action. This order is the foundation of the
jurisdiction and the word “substance” means the
essence of the most important parts of the
information.”
50. In the opinion of this Court, the principles laid down by the
Apex Court in Madhu Limaye (Supra) have not been violated at this
stage. The SEM shall ensure that the principles laid down by the Apex
Court as well as by this Court and the provisions of Chapter IX of the
BNSS are not given a go by at later stages of the proceedings against
the Petitioner also.
51. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion
that the Impugned Notice meets the requirements of a show cause
notice under Chapter IX of the BNSS. However, it is always open to
the Petitioner to raise a challenge at an appropriate stage.
52. This Court, however, deems it fit to state that the SEM must
necessarily keep in mind the import of Section 135 of the BNSS and
leaves it open for the SEM to decide on the insistence of a bond at the
first instance, as the provision provides for furnishing a bond only if
there is an apprehension of breach of peace or disturbance after the
commencement and before the completion of the enquiry. Needless to
state, at the time of passing an order under Section 135(3) of the
BNSS, the SEM will take into account the safeguards given by the
five Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Madhu Limaye (Supra) ,
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(CRL) 3342/2026 Page 45 of 46
23.10.2026 20:45
followed by the Division Bench of this Court in Aldanish Rein
(Supra).
53. It is further needless to state that there will be several
opportunities to the Petitioner to take recourse to the remedies under
law at different stages of enquiry, including after passing of the final
order upon conclusion of the enquiry.
54. It is made clear that all the observations in this Judgment are
only limited to the purport of interference by this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India at the stage of issuance of a show
cause notice. Undoubtedly, the SEM would apply his own mind to the
material/information placed before him and only then, arrive at a
conclusion regarding furnishing of a personal bond or bail bond.
55. With these observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed, along
with pending Application(s), if any.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
OCTOBER 23, 2026
Hsk/AP/ER
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
W.P.(CRL) 3342/2026 Page 46 of 46
23.10.2026 20:45