SHARMINA Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this Crl.M.C is against Annexure A1 preliminary order under Sec. 130 of the BNSS issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Perinthalmanna requiring the petitioner to show cause why she should not be ordered to execute a bond for Rs.50,000.00 with sureties to keep peace for a period of one year. The basis for issuing the order is Annexure A2 report of the Station House Officer, Kolathur Police Station stating that, by repeatedly indulging in illegal activities, petitioner is likely to cause breach of peace and disturb public tranquillity in the locality.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, among the crimes referred in Annexure A2 report, the allegation in Crime No.138 of 2024 registered at Thalapuzha Police Station is that the petitioner, along with 12 other individuals, held a procession to commemorate the death anniversary of a lady named Kavitha, who was associated with a Maoist group. The allegation in Crime No.123 of 2024 registered at the Nilambur Police Station is that on 22/1/2024, between 18:50 and 19:10 hrs, petitioner and other accused belonging to Purogamana Yuvajana Prasthanam organised a demonstration, disrupted traffic and shouted the slogan "In the land of Babari, Justice is only Masjid". The 3rd crime, registered as per Annexure A5, pertains to a protest by the petitioner and 7 others against an NIA raid in Pandikkad. According to the learned counsel, voicing one's opinion and expressing dissent is every citizen's fundamental right and petitioner's liberty cannot be curtailed, by reason of her participation in demonstrations and voicing her opinion. It is contended that, for invoking the power under Sec. 126 and compelling a person to execute bond under Sec. 130 of BNSS, the Sub Divisional Magistrate should reach a prima facie conclusion that the activities of that person is posing imminent threat to the peace and tranquillity in the locality. In support of the contention, reliance is placed on the decisions in Kuldip Singh Chawla and Others v. The State of Bihar [1988 Supreme (Pat) 107], Ashish Khanna v. State of Bihar Through S.D.M. [2007 Supreme (Pat) 1130] and Bijay Sankar Sen and Ors. v. State of Assam and Others [2021 Supreme (Gau) 415].

(3.) According to the learned Public Prosecutor, repeated registration of crimes against the petitioner for holding demonstrations and disrupting traffic shows that she is an imminent threat to peace and tranquillity. Hence, petitioner has to be restrained, by requiring her to execute the bond under Sec. 130 of BNSS.