Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Aseem @ Mammu vs State Of Kerala on 19 June, 2025

Author: V.G.Arun

Bench: V.G.Arun

                                                      2025:KER:47846
CRL.MC NO. 1186 OF 2025

                                     1
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

   THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 29TH JYAISHTA, 1947

                          CRL.MC NO. 1186 OF 2025

 CRIME NO.1952/2023 OF PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

         AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 30.01.2025 IN MC NO.778

OF 2023 OF SUB DIVISIONAL COURT,FORT COCHIN

PETITIONERS:

             ASEEM @ MAMMU
             AGED 35 YEARS
             S/O ABDUL RAHMAN, MURIKKALIL (H),
             ST. VINCENT D PAUL ROAD,
             THAMMANAM ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682032

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.RAMEEZ NOOH
             SMT.FATHIMA K.
             SHRI.AMIN ALI ASHRAF
             SHRI.DANIC ANTONY
             SMT.SHAFNA SINU




RESPONDENTS:

     1       STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
             HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031

     2       SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE
             FORTKOCHI, ERNAKULAM,
             PIN - 682001
                                                 2025:KER:47846
CRL.MC NO. 1186 OF 2025

                                   2
     3      THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
            PALARIVATTAM POLICE STATION,
            ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682025

            BY SHEEBA THOMAS, PP


      THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                     2025:KER:47846
CRL.MC NO. 1186 OF 2025

                                     3

                              ORDER

The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure A order issued under Section 126 r/w Section 130 of BNSS, requiring to show cause as to why he should not be ordered to execute bond for keeping peace for a period of one year. The basis for initiation of the proceedings, as discernible from the order, is the registration of a crime against the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that mere registration of a crime cannot, by itself, trigger proceedings under Section 126 r/w Section 130 of BNSS. It is the further contention of the learned counsel that the order does not reflect application of mind by the Magistrate. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Santhosh M.V. and Others v. State of Kerala and Others [2014 KHC 522] to contend that in the absence of reasons for arriving at the conclusion that the petitioner must be compelled to enter into a bond, his liberty cannot be curtailed by merely referring to a crime number. Referring to the decision of this Court in Girish P. and Others v. State of Kerala and Another [2009 (4) KHC 929], it is contended 2025:KER:47846 CRL.MC NO. 1186 OF 2025 4 that, for taking action under Section 126 of BNSS, the threat caused by the petitioner should be imminent, whereas the only crime against the petitioner is of the year 2023.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the illegal activities of criminals and shady characters in and around Kaloor Stadium is causing law and order issues, and the impugned order is issued in an attempt to curb the illegal activities.

4. No doubt, the presence of criminal elements in and around Kaloor Stadium is posing a threat to the public. Being so, the Sub Divisional Magistrate is well within his power to issue preventive orders also. The only requirement is that the action should be in accordance with the prescribed procedure, as that culminates in the liberty of a citizen being curtailed. The law on the point is well settled by a series of decisions, including those cited above. In the case at hand, except extracting the report of the Station House Officer, nothing further has been done by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. In the absence of reasons as to why the petitioner is being called upon to execute the bond and how the activities of the petitioner are posing an imminent 2025:KER:47846 CRL.MC NO. 1186 OF 2025 5 threat, the order cannot survive legal scrutiny.

For the aforementioned reasons, the Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure A order is quashed, leaving it open for the Sub Divisional Magistrate to pass a reasoned order, if so warranted.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE SPV 2025:KER:47846 CRL.MC NO. 1186 OF 2025 6 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1186/2025 PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 30.01.2025 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, FORT KOCHI IN MC NO. 778/2024 UNDER SECTION 130 OF THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE