AMEERALI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners challenge Annexure-A notices issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tirur. By the said notices, they have been called upon to appear before the said officer in person at 3 p.m. on 16.04.2019 and to show cause why they should not be required to enter into a bond of Rs.10,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the like amount for keeping peace for a term of one year.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners 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 Magistrate to take action under Section 111 of the Cr.P.C. The orders cannot be sustained as the substance of accusation has not been stated in Annexure-A, 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 was placed on Madhu Limaye v. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Monghyr, 1971 AIR(SC) 2486, the decision of this Court in Moidu v. State of Kerala, 1982 KerLT 578 and the decision of the learned Single Judges in Peethambaran v. State of Kerala,1980 KerLT 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.

(3.) Heard the learned Senior Public Prosecutor as well and I have gone through the materials on record.