Security for Keeping the Peace and for Good Behaviour (Chapters VIII / IX BNSS)

Chapter IX of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Sections 125 to 144 BNSS, corresponding to Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), Sections 106 to 124 — collects the preventive-security provisions of Indian criminal-procedure law. The architecture is unusual. The chapter does not deal with the punishment of crimes already committed; it deals with the prevention of crimes the State has reason to anticipate. The instrument is the bond — the order that a person execute a personal bond, with or without sureties, for keeping the peace or for good behaviour for a specified period. The bond is preventive, not punitive; the breach of the bond, if it occurs, leads to forfeiture and imprisonment in default of fresh security, but the bond itself is not a sentence of imprisonment.

The chapter divides into two halves. Sections 125 and 126 BNSS deal with security for keeping the peace — the order that a person not commit any of a defined list of offences involving violence, criminal force, mischief or criminal intimidation. Sections 127 to 129 BNSS deal with security for good behaviour — the wider order that a person abstain from a broader category of suspect or anti-social conduct. Sections 130 to 144 BNSS lay down the procedure that any preventive-security order must follow. The chapter is the operating space of the Executive Magistracy in India — though Section 125 BNSS itself reserves a single power to the Court of Session and the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class. For the broader procedural sequence, read this chapter alongside the chapter on maintenance of public order and tranquillity and the rest of the CrPC and BNSS notes.

Why the chapter is preventive, not punitive

The Supreme Court has, in a long line of cases including Madhu Limaye v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, AIR 1971 SC 2486, emphasised the preventive character of the chapter. The proceedings under Sections 125 to 129 BNSS are not a 'trial' within the meaning of the Sanhita. They do not result in conviction or acquittal; they result in an order requiring the bond, or in the discharge of the person against whom the proceeding was initiated. The bond, if forfeited, is recovered as a fine; if the person fails to furnish the bond, he may be detained in custody for a period not exceeding the period for which the bond was required, but this detention is treated as a preventive measure rather than as imprisonment in execution of a criminal sentence.

The preventive character has constitutional consequences. Article 21 — the right to life and personal liberty — requires that any preventive deprivation of liberty be subject to fair, just and reasonable procedure. The procedural safeguards in Sections 130 to 144 BNSS are the statutory machinery through which that requirement is operationalised: the show-cause notice, the inquiry, the recording of evidence, the right of defence, and the appeal under Section 442 BNSS (previously Section 397 CrPC) for revision through the channel set out in the chapter on reference and revision under Sections 438 to 445 BNSS. The Supreme Court has held that compliance with this machinery is non-negotiable; an order under Sections 125 to 129 BNSS that bypasses the procedure is liable to be quashed in revision or under Section 528 BNSS (previously Section 482 CrPC).

Section 125 BNSS — security for keeping the peace on conviction

Section 125 BNSS (previously Section 106 CrPC) is the only provision in the chapter that operates judicially, in the wake of a conviction. Where a Court of Session or a Court of a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class convicts a person of an offence specified in sub-section (2) — or of abetting such an offence — and is of opinion that it is necessary to take security for keeping the peace, it may order such person to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for keeping the peace for such period, not exceeding three years, as it thinks fit. The order is made at the time of passing the sentence; it forms part of the decision in the trial. If the conviction is set aside on appeal, the bond becomes void.

The offences enumerated in Section 125(2) BNSS are: any offence punishable under Chapter XI of the BNS (formerly Chapter VIII of the IPC) other than the seditious-related offences carved out (corresponding to the old Sections 153A, 153B and 154 IPC); any offence which consists of, or includes, assault or using criminal force or committing mischief; any offence of criminal intimidation; and any other offence which caused, or was intended or known to be likely to cause, a breach of the peace. The fourth catch-all category is the operationally important one — it allows the Court to demand a peace bond from a person convicted of any offence whose underlying nature is breach-of-the-peace, even if not specifically enumerated. The provision is not extended to a Magistrate of the Second Class; the procedure where a Second-Class Magistrate considers a peace bond appropriate is to forward the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 348 BNSS (previously Section 325 CrPC).

Section 126 BNSS — security for keeping the peace in other cases

Section 126 BNSS (previously Section 107 CrPC) is the parallel provision for cases that have not yet ripened into conviction. An Executive Magistrate — not a Judicial Magistrate — who has reason to believe that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace, or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace, and is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, may require the 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. The provision is the workhorse of the chapter — the Section 126 BNSS proceeding is the one most often initiated by the Police on the eve of a public-order risk.

The Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye emphasised that the order under Section 126 BNSS must be founded on materials sufficient to ground a reasonable apprehension of breach of the peace. The Magistrate cannot proceed on bare suspicion or on a vague police report; the materials must include either evidence of past conduct establishing a likelihood of repetition, or fresh information establishing a present threat. The same discipline, applied to police-driven preventive action under Section 170 BNSS, is taken up in the chapter on preventive action of police under Sections 168 to 172 BNSS. The order to show cause must, under Section 130 BNSS (previously Section 111 CrPC), set 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 required.

Section 127 BNSS — security for good behaviour from disseminators

Section 127 BNSS (previously Section 108 CrPC) is the first of the three good-behaviour provisions. A Judicial Magistrate of the First Class — not an Executive Magistrate — who has information that there is within his local jurisdiction any person who intentionally disseminates or attempts to disseminate, or abets the dissemination of, certain categories of matter, may require the person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond for good behaviour for such period not exceeding one year as the Magistrate thinks fit. The categories are: seditious matter; matter causing enmity between classes or outraging religious feelings; matter concerning a Judge that amounts to criminal intimidation or defamation; and obscene matter.

The provision is the preventive analogue of the substantive offences under Sections 196, 197 and 295 BNS (previously Sections 153A, 153B and 295A IPC) — the broader doctrinal context is taken up in the chapter on conditions for initiation of proceedings for cognisance-related questions. Where an information of dissemination has not yet ripened into a complaint or FIR for the substantive offence, Section 127 BNSS allows the Magistrate to fence off the conduct by demanding a good-behaviour bond. The constitutional space in which the provision operates is narrow — Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution protects freedom of speech and expression — and the Magistrate must be careful that the order is supported by evidence of intentional dissemination of the proscribed material. A routine Section 127 BNSS order against a journalist or a publisher is liable to be quashed.

The interaction between Section 127 BNSS and the substantive offences is significant. The chapter on framing of charge under Sections 261 to 273 BNSS takes up the substantive prosecution architecture; Section 127 BNSS operates as a preventive shadow on that architecture, and the careful Magistrate will distinguish between the two — using Section 127 BNSS only where the substantive offence has not yet ripened into prosecution. A simultaneous Section 127 BNSS order and a substantive prosecution under the corresponding BNS offence may be challenged on the ground that the preventive jurisdiction is being misused as a parallel punitive measure.

Section 128 BNSS — security for good behaviour from suspected persons

Section 128 BNSS (previously Section 109 CrPC) addresses the suspect-loitering category. A Judicial Magistrate of the First Class who has information that any person is taking precautions to conceal his presence within the Magistrate's local jurisdiction, and that there is reason to believe that such person is taking the precautions with a view to committing a cognizable offence, may require him to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond for good behaviour. The provision was historically used against vagrants and loiterers; the modern application is more circumspect, with the Supreme Court in Gopalanachari v. State of Kerala, (1980) 4 SCC 470, holding that the provision must be applied with care and that vague police reports do not ground a Section 109 CrPC (now Section 128 BNSS) order.

Section 129 BNSS — security for good behaviour from habitual offenders

Section 129 BNSS (previously Section 110 CrPC) is the habitual-offender provision and the most consequential of the three good-behaviour rules. A Judicial Magistrate of the First Class who has information that a person within his jurisdiction falls in any of the categories enumerated may require him to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond for good behaviour. The categories are: a person who is by habit a robber, house-breaker, thief, forger, or receiver of stolen property; a person who habitually protects or harbours thieves or aids in the concealment or disposal of stolen property; a person who habitually commits, attempts or abets kidnapping, abduction, extortion, cheating or mischief or counterfeiting offences; a person who habitually commits offences involving a breach of the peace; a person who habitually commits an anti-social offence under specified Acts; and a person who is so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large hazardous to the community.

The Supreme Court has emphasised that the word 'habitually' in Section 129 BNSS is not a mere description but a factual finding the Magistrate must record. A single conviction does not establish habit. The Magistrate must consider previous convictions in admissible form under Section 11 BSA (previously Section 12 of the Indian Evidence Act), the existence of pending cases, and the witness evidence on the person's pattern of conduct. The bond, if ordered, may be for a period not exceeding three years.

Sections 130 to 132 BNSS — procedure on the show-cause

Sections 130 to 132 BNSS (previously Sections 111 to 113 CrPC) lay down the procedure on the show-cause stage. Section 130 BNSS requires the order to set forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond, the term and the number, character and class of sureties. Section 131 BNSS deals with the case where the person is present in Court — the order is read or its substance explained to him. Section 132 BNSS deals with the case where the person is not present — a summons is issued, but where the Magistrate is satisfied that immediate arrest is necessary to prevent the breach of the peace, a warrant of arrest may be issued instead.

Sections 133 to 138 BNSS — inquiry and order

Sections 133 to 138 BNSS (previously Sections 114 to 119 CrPC) lay down the inquiry procedure. Section 135 BNSS (previously Section 116 CrPC) is the central inquiry provision. The Magistrate proceeds to inquire into the truth of the information upon which action has been taken and takes such further evidence as may appear necessary. The inquiry is conducted as nearly as may be in the manner prescribed for warrant-cases triable by Magistrates, but it is not a trial. Section 136 BNSS empowers the Magistrate, where the inquiry is likely to be protracted, to require the person to execute an interim bond pending the inquiry; the interim bond is itself subject to the discipline of proportionality.

Section 137 BNSS (previously Section 117 CrPC) deals with the order at the conclusion of the inquiry. If the Magistrate is satisfied that it is necessary for keeping the peace or for good behaviour that the person should execute a bond, with or without sureties, the Magistrate makes an order accordingly. If the Magistrate is not so satisfied, the person is discharged. The proviso to Section 137 BNSS contains two important constraints: the amount of any bond shall not be excessive, having regard to the circumstances of the case; the Magistrate, in fixing the amount, shall have due regard to the condition of the person concerned. The 'shall not be excessive' cap continues from the 1973 Code; it is the proportionality discipline by which excessive-bond orders are policed.

Sections 139 to 144 BNSS — incidents of failure

Sections 139 to 144 BNSS deal with the consequences of failure to furnish the bond, breach of the bond, and discharge of sureties. Section 139 BNSS (previously Section 120 CrPC) deals with the term of imprisonment in default of furnishing the bond — not exceeding the period for which the bond was required. Section 140 BNSS (previously Section 121 CrPC) deals with the case where a person originally bound for a longer period commits a fresh breach. Section 141 BNSS (previously Section 122 CrPC) deals with imprisonment in default of security. Section 142 BNSS (previously Section 123 CrPC) deals with the power to release on probation. Section 143 BNSS (previously Section 124 CrPC) deals with the discharge of sureties. Section 144 BNSS is the maintenance-of-wife-children-parents provision (previously Section 125 CrPC), which though numbered with this chapter is substantively a separate doctrine taken up in the chapter on maintenance of wife, children and parents.

Constitutional overlay — Articles 14, 19, 21

The preventive-security chapter sits on three constitutional fault lines. Article 14 — the equality guarantee — requires the chapter to be applied without arbitrariness; an order initiated against a particular person without comparable orders against similarly placed persons is liable to challenge. Article 19(1)(a), (b) and (d) — the freedoms of speech, assembly and movement — constrain the Section 127 BNSS dissemination orders, the Section 128 BNSS suspect-loitering orders, and the Section 129 BNSS habitual-offender orders, all of which restrict freedoms otherwise constitutionally protected. Article 21 — the right to life and personal liberty — requires the procedure under Sections 130 to 144 BNSS to be fair, just and reasonable, and the Magistrate to apply his mind judicially.

The Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye set out the discipline. The order to show cause must specify the information; the inquiry must be conducted on evidence; the order, if made, must be reasoned. The Court in Gopalanachari emphasised the discipline against vague police reports as the foundation for a Section 109 CrPC (now Section 128 BNSS) order. The Allahabad High Court in Ram Charan v. State, AIR 1953 All 375, observed — in a passage that reads with full force into the BNSS — that the chapter, being an interference with the liberty of the individual, must be exercised judicially and strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down in the relevant sections.

Why this chapter matters in practice

The preventive-security chapter is one of the busiest parts of the Executive Magistracy's docket. Section 126 BNSS proceedings are launched in their thousands every year, on the eve of festivals, elections, communal-tension flashpoints, and large-scale public events. Section 129 BNSS proceedings against habitual offenders are a staple of the District Magistrate's portfolio. The chapter is also one of the most-misapplied parts of the Sanhita — vague police reports, perfunctory show-cause orders, excessive bond amounts and unreasoned final orders are common defects, and a substantial fraction of Section 129 BNSS orders are quashed in revision.

For the candidate, the chapter rewards careful study of three pivot points: the difference between Section 125 BNSS (judicial, on conviction) and Section 126 BNSS (executive, in anticipation); the careful enumeration of categories under the Section 129 BNSS habitual-offender provision, where the word 'habitually' is itself a factual finding requiring evidence rather than mere assertion; and the procedural discipline in Sections 130 to 138 BNSS that any order must follow — show-cause notice with the substance of the information, the bond amount, the term, and the sureties; inquiry on evidence; reasoned order; and the proportionality cap on the bond amount under Section 137 BNSS. A fact-pattern question in this chapter typically tests whether the Magistrate has identified the right power, exercised it through the right procedure, and stayed within the proportionality envelope. The candidate who internalises the architecture finds the chapter rewarding; the candidate who skips it leaves a sizeable hole in his exam preparation, since preventive-security work is among the most heavily examined parts of the procedural-law syllabus across State judicial-service examinations. The interaction with the public-order chapter — Sections 148 to 167 BNSS, taken up in the chapter on maintenance of public order, the chapter on preventive action of police, and the chapter on disputes regarding immovable property — is the wider context in which preventive-security work is done. For the constitutional review of orders made under this chapter, the chapter on inherent powers of the High Court takes the doctrine forward.

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between Section 125 BNSS and Section 126 BNSS?

Section 125 BNSS (previously Section 106 CrPC) is judicial. It is exercised by a Court of Session or a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class at the time of conviction, where the offence is one of the categories enumerated in Section 125(2) BNSS — Chapter XI BNS (Public Tranquillity), assault, criminal force, mischief, criminal intimidation, or any offence likely to cause a breach of the peace. The bond is for a period not exceeding three years. Section 126 BNSS (previously Section 107 CrPC) is executive. It is exercised by an Executive Magistrate, in anticipation of a breach of the peace, on the basis of information received. The bond is for a period not exceeding one year. The two operate at different stages — conviction versus apprehension — and by different officers.

Are proceedings under Sections 125 to 129 BNSS a 'trial'?

No. The Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, AIR 1971 SC 2486, has emphasised that the proceedings are preventive, not punitive. They are not a trial within the meaning of the Sanhita. They do not result in conviction or acquittal — they result in an order requiring the bond, or in discharge of the person against whom the proceeding was initiated. The bond, if forfeited, is recovered as a fine; if the person fails to furnish the bond, he may be detained for a period not exceeding the bond period, but the detention is preventive rather than punitive. The procedural safeguards in Sections 130 to 144 BNSS are the constitutional minimum that the chapter must observe.

What does 'habitually' mean in Section 129 BNSS?

It is a factual finding the Magistrate must record on evidence, not a description that follows automatically from the information. The Supreme Court has emphasised that a single conviction does not establish habit. The Magistrate must consider previous convictions proved in admissible form under Section 11 BSA (previously Section 12 of the Indian Evidence Act), the existence of pending cases, and the witness evidence on the person's pattern of conduct. A Section 129 BNSS order founded on a vague or unproved suggestion of habit is liable to be quashed in revision. The bond, if ordered, may be for a period not exceeding three years.

Can a Magistrate of the Second Class pass an order under Section 125 BNSS?

No. Section 125(1) BNSS reserves the power to a Court of Session and a Court of a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class. Where a Magistrate of the Second Class, in any case before him, considers that the convict ought to be required to execute a bond under Section 125 BNSS, the procedure to be followed is laid down in Section 348 BNSS (previously Section 325 CrPC). The Second-Class Magistrate records the opinion as to the necessity for the bond and forwards the proceedings — and the convict — to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, with the wider sentencing power under Section 23(1) BNSS, then disposes of the case and passes the appropriate order under Section 125 BNSS.

What is the maximum amount of the bond that can be demanded under this chapter?

The Sanhita does not fix a maximum amount in rupee terms. The discipline is qualitative, not quantitative. Section 137 BNSS (previously the proviso to Section 117 CrPC) requires the amount to be 'not excessive' having regard to the circumstances of the case, and the Magistrate, in fixing the amount, shall have due regard to the condition of the person concerned. The 'not excessive' cap is the proportionality discipline by which excessive-bond orders are policed. An order requiring an amount disproportionate to the means of the person is liable to be quashed in revision; the older case law under Section 106(1) CrPC, on the older 'proportionate to his means' formulation, continues to inform the application of the present provision.

What happens if a person fails to furnish the bond demanded under Sections 125 to 129 BNSS?

Section 141 BNSS (previously Section 122 CrPC) provides for imprisonment in default of security. The person may be detained in custody for a period not exceeding the period for which the bond was required. The detention is preventive, not punitive. Section 142 BNSS (previously Section 123 CrPC) empowers the Court to release the person on probation, with or without sureties, before the expiry of the bond period. The Court that originally made the order, or any Court before which the matter is brought, has the power to release. The aim is preventive — once the apprehension that grounded the bond order has subsided, the detention loses its justification.