VIJAYAKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner challenges Annexure-C order issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram. By the said notice, the petitioner has been called upon to appear before the said officer in person at 11.00 a.m. on 31.01.2018 and to show cause why he should not be required to enter into a bond of Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each for keeping peace for a term of one year.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would assail the order on various grounds. It is submitted that the liberty of a person should only be curtailed according to its own procedure and not on the whim of the Magistrate concerned. The order passed by the learned Magistrate is the foundation of the jurisdiction and it had to give sufficient notice as to what incited the learned Magistrate to take action under Section 111 of the Cr.P.C. The order cannot be sustained as the substance of accusation has not been stated in Annexure-C order, submits the learned counsel. It is urged that the materials before the learned Magistrate were thoroughly inadequate to arrive at the requisite satisfaction. There was no indication of the likelihood of any breach of peace or disturbance of public tranquility in the near future. Finally, it is contended that the preliminary order under Section 107 did not meet the requirement of Section 111 of the Code. Reliance is placed on Madhu Limaye v. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Monghyr [AIR 1971 SC 2486], the decision of this Court in Moidu v. State of Kerala [1982 KLT 578] and the decision of the learned Single Judges in Peethambaran v. State of Kerala [1980 KLT 876], Santhosh M.V. and Others V State of Kerala [2014 (2) KLD 519] and Bejoy K.V. v. State of Kerala [2015 (2) KLD 889].