Uttarakhand HC: BNSS Notice Proposing ₹25,000 Peace Bond Does Not Itself Require Security; Applicant Gets Two Weeks To Reply

The applicant sought to quash a notice/order dated 3 October 2026 issued under Section 131 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), and the related proceedings under Sections 126/135 pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehri.

She alleged that an ashram manager had encroached on a public pathway and that, after she complained to the District Magistrate, the manager retaliated with a false complaint against her and her husband.

Although an inquiry reportedly found no offence and considered the dispute civil, police submitted a challani report, leading to the impugned notice requiring her to show cause why she should not furnish a bond and sureties.

Her criminal revision against the notice was dismissed as not maintainable because the notice was interlocutory.

Before the High Court, the applicant did not press the application on its merits and sought permission to file objections before the Magistrate.

Sections 126, 131, 135, 135(3), and 136 of the BNSS governed the preventive proceedings and the proposed security requirement.

The Magistrate must consider the applicant’s response and afford her an opportunity of hearing before making an appropriate order in accordance with law; the question whether security is required under Section 136 must be decided on the material and evidence available.

Any direction to furnish security during the inquiry is subject to the statutory requirements of Section 135(3).

Issuance of a show-cause notice, by itself, is not a direction to furnish the proposed bond and sureties.

The applicant expressly chose not to press the challenge on its merits at that stage and instead sought an opportunity to respond before the Magistrate.

The High Court therefore did not determine the merits of the allegations or the validity of initiating the proceedings.

It directed that the applicant be allowed to file objections and that the Magistrate consider them after hearing her.

To avoid treating the notice as a final security order, the Court clarified that any requirement to furnish security must be separately determined under the applicable BNSS provisions, based on the record and statutory procedure.

The Sub-Divisional Magistrate must consider them, afford the applicant a hearing, and proceed in accordance with law; any security requirement must be decided under Sections 135(3) and 136 of the BNSS.

The Court clarified that the notice alone did not require the applicant to furnish the proposed bond and sureties.

The application was disposed of without adjudication on the merits.