Section 129 BNSS | Mandatory Show-Cause Hearing Required Before Ordering Bail Bond for Good Behaviour: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court has underscored the procedural safeguard under Section 129 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), holding that a person must be afforded an opportunity to show cause before being directed to execute a bail bond for good behaviour. The judgment clarifies that any notice issued under this provision without such opportunity is illegal, reinforcing the principles of natural justice in criminal proceedings.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioner, Harshdeepsingh Kisansingh Sidhu, a businessman residing in Pune, challenged a notice dated 29 June 2026 issued by the Special Executive Magistrate, Parimandal-1, Pune (Respondent No. 2) under Section 129 of the BNSS. The notice directed the petitioner to remain present after five days and furnish a bail bond, but it did not provide an opportunity to show cause as to why he should not be ordered to execute such a bond.

Key Facts

• The petitioner was issued a notice under Section 129 BNSS on 29 June 2026 in CC No. 216 of 2026.
• The notice did not afford the petitioner an opportunity to show cause before being directed to execute a bail bond.
• The petitioner filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 3304 of 2026 before the Bombay High Court challenging the legality of the notice.

Procedural History

• 29 June 2026: Notice issued by Respondent No. 2 under Section 129 BNSS.
• 03 July 2026: Petitioner filed the present writ petition before the Bombay High Court.
• 03 July 2026: Hearing conducted; parties consented to dispose of the matter finally.

The Parties' Positions

For the Petitioner

The petitioner contended that Section 129 BNSS mandates an opportunity to show cause before directing the execution of a bail bond. The impugned notice failed to comply with this requirement, rendering it illegal.

For the Respondents

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP), on instructions from Respondent No. 2, submitted that the intention behind the notice was to call upon the petitioner to show cause. She requested that the notice be treated as a show cause notice and that the petitioner be directed to file a reply by 13 July 2026.

Relief Sought

The petitioner sought quashing of the impugned notice dated 29 June 2026 and a direction to the respondents to afford him an opportunity to show cause before any further proceedings under Section 129 BNSS.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether Section 129 of the BNSS requires an opportunity of show cause to be afforded to a person before directing them to execute a bail bond for good behaviour, and whether the impugned notice, which lacked such an opportunity, was illegal.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

The petitioner's counsel argued that Section 129 BNSS explicitly mandates an opportunity to show cause before any order for execution of a bail bond can be passed. The impugned notice, which merely directed the petitioner to remain present and furnish a bail bond without such an opportunity, was contrary to the statutory requirement and thus illegal.

For the Respondents

The learned APP, on instructions from Respondent No. 2, submitted that the notice was intended to serve as a show cause notice. She requested that the court treat the impugned notice as a show cause notice and direct the petitioner to file his reply by 13 July 2026 at 10:30 AM before Respondent No. 2.

The Court's Analysis

The Court observed that Section 129 BNSS is a procedural provision designed to ensure that a person is not arbitrarily directed to execute a bail bond for good behaviour. The provision inherently requires that the person be given an opportunity to show cause as to why they should not be ordered to execute such a bond. The impugned notice, which failed to provide this opportunity, was therefore defective in law.

The Court noted that the learned APP's submission to treat the impugned notice as a show cause notice and afford the petitioner an opportunity to reply was a pragmatic solution that aligned with the principles of natural justice. The Court accepted this submission, ensuring that the petitioner's rights under Section 129 BNSS were protected.

The Verdict

The Court disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:

1. The impugned notice dated 29 June 2026 was treated as a show cause notice under Section 129 BNSS.
2. The petitioner was directed to appear before Respondent No. 2 on 13 July 2026 at 10:30 AM and file his reply to the show cause notice.
3. The petitioner was directed not to seek any adjournment.
4. The respondents were directed to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law after considering the petitioner's reply.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Opportunity of Show Cause Is Non-Negotiable

This judgment reaffirms that Section 129 BNSS mandates an opportunity of show cause before any direction to execute a bail bond can be issued. Practitioners must ensure that:

• Any notice issued under Section 129 BNSS explicitly affords the recipient an opportunity to show cause.
• Failure to provide such an opportunity renders the notice illegal and liable to be quashed.

Procedural Compliance Is Critical

• Courts will not hesitate to set aside notices or orders that fail to comply with statutory procedural requirements.
• The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice, even in summary proceedings.

Pragmatic Solutions Can Preserve Rights

• Where procedural defects are identified, parties may propose pragmatic solutions (e.g., treating a defective notice as a show cause notice) to avoid unnecessary litigation.
• Courts are likely to accept such solutions if they align with statutory requirements and protect the rights of the affected party.