Peace Bonds under the BNSS

Source:  The Indian Express 

Introduction 

The Delhi High Court recently dismissed AISA leader Neha Bora's plea against a Special Executive Magistrate's (SEM) notice. The notice asked her to execute a personal bond of ₹10,000 with one surety to keep the peace during an inquiry. She had been detained at Mandi House during a protest on 16th October 2026. 

The Court held that the notice rested on the SEM's subjective satisfaction, formed after examining general diary entries, the Kalandara (case file) and three witnesses. This met the requirements of Sections 126 and 130 of the BNSS. Since the proceedings are preventive, the SEM need not act as a fact-finding authority. At the show cause stage, the High Court cannot substitute its own satisfaction for the SEM's. 

What is a Peace Bond? 

• A peace bond is a preventive measure that restrains a person likely to breach public peace from doing so. 
• No FIR or offence is required to start the proceedings. 
• The scheme is in Chapter IX (Sections 125–143) of the BNSS, which corresponds to Chapter VIII of the CrPC. 

When Can a Show Cause Notice be Issued? 

• Section 126: The person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb public tranquillity. 
• Section 127 (bond for up to one year): The person disseminates, or abets the dissemination of:  
  • Matter punishable under BNS Sections 152, 196, 197 or 299. 
  • Matter that defames or criminally intimidates a Judge. 
  • Obscene matter. 
• Section 128: The person is concealing their presence in order to commit a cognizable offence. 
• Section 129 (bond for up to three years): The person is a habitual offender. 
• Section 130: The Magistrate's written order must state:  
  • The substance of the information received. 
  • The bond amount. 
  • The term of the bond. 
  • The number of sureties. 

What Procedure Follows the Notice? 

• Section 131: If the person is present in court, the order is read over and explained to them. 
• Sections 132–133: If the person is absent, a summons is issued. If the person is in custody, a warrant is issued. Either must be accompanied by a copy of the Section 130 order. 
• Section 134: The Magistrate may dispense with personal attendance and allow appearance through an advocate. 
• Section 135 – Inquiry:  
  • 135(1): The inquiry follows the procedure for summons cases. 
  • 135(3): For recorded reasons, the Magistrate may require an interim bond and detain the person until it is executed. The conditions cannot be more onerous than those in the Section 130 order. 
  • 135(6): The inquiry must finish within six months. Otherwise the proceedings stand terminated, unless the Magistrate records special reasons for continuing. 
  • 135(7): A Sessions Judge may vacate such a continuation if the reasons are not special or are perverse. 

What Happens after the Inquiry? 

• Section 136: If a bond is found necessary, the Magistrate orders it.  
  • The amount and period cannot exceed those in the Section 130 order. 
  • The amount must not be excessive. 
  • If the person is a child, only the sureties execute the bond. 
• Section 137: If a bond is not found necessary, the person is released from custody or discharged. 
• Section 140: The Magistrate may reject an unfit surety, but only after an inquiry into the surety's fitness. 

Can a Peace Bond Order be Challenged? 

• Revision (Section 438 BNSS): An interim bond order can be challenged in revision before the Sessions Court.  
  • Amar Nath v. State of Haryana (1977): The Supreme Court held that an order that substantially affects a person's rights is not an interlocutory order, so revision is not barred. 
  • Ankaputtaswamy v. Papegowda (1978): Applying Amar Nath, the Karnataka High Court held that a show cause notice calling for peace bonds can be revised. 
• Appeal (Section 414 BNSS): An appeal lies to the Sessions Court against:  
  • A final order under Section 136. 
  • An order under Section 140 rejecting a surety. 

What have the Courts Said? 

• Madhu Limaye v. SDM, Monghyr (1970):  
  • A seven-judge bench upheld Chapter VIII CrPC and Section 144 CrPC as reasonable restrictions under Article 19. 
  • It held that liberty can be curtailed only by procedure, not at a Magistrate's whim. 
  • An interim bond and remand are illegal unless the inquiry has actually begun and prima facie satisfaction is recorded. 
  • The person has a right to counsel. 
• Aldanish Rein v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2018): The Delhi High Court held that SEMs must apply their mind before ordering remand, and criticised cyclostyled (template) orders. 
• Istkar v. State of U.P. (2022): The Supreme Court held that these provisions are preventive, not punitive. Bonds are meant to preserve public peace, not to add to the State exchequer. 

Does a Peace Bond Bar a Later FIR? 

• Article 20 does not bar a later FIR, because a peace bond is preventive while FIR proceedings are punitive. 
• Brij Lal v. UT of J&K (2026): The High Court rejected the plea of double jeopardy on this basis. 
• Ram Kumar v. State of Tamil Nadu (2026): The Madras High Court held that an FIR alone cannot conclusively prove breach of a peace bond. The Magistrate must reach an independent satisfaction on the breach. 

Conclusion 

Peace bonds give Executive Magistrates a preventive tool to maintain public order without an FIR. Because they can restrict liberty and the freedoms under Article 19, courts have required procedural safeguards: a reasoned written order, an inquiry that has actually begun, prima facie satisfaction, the right to counsel, a reasonable bond amount and time-bound proceedings. The Delhi High Court's ruling shows the deference courts give to a Magistrate's satisfaction at the show cause stage. It also confirms that the power must stay preventive and must not become punitive.