The Bombay High Court has clarified that Section 129 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 cannot be invoked against an individual based on a single offence unless they qualify as a habitual offender or pose a hazard to the community. This judgment underscores the necessity of establishing a pattern of conduct or a demonstrable threat before initiating security proceedings under the BNSS.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, a student, was subjected to security proceedings under Section 129(g)(h) of the BNSS following the registration of FIR No. 81 of 2025 for offences under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 352, 64(1), and 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The allegations stemmed from a consensual relationship that later turned contentious. The applicant received two show-cause notices:
- Dated 5 May 2025 under Section 129(g)(h) of the BNSS in Chapter Case No. 7 of 2025, arising from Security Proceedings No. 119 of 2025.
- Dated 1 October 2025 under Section 141 of the BNSS in Court Case No. 28 of 2025, alleging violation of bond conditions executed in the earlier proceedings.
Key Facts
- FIR No. 81 of 2025 was registered for offences under the BNS, including sexual harassment.
- The applicant executed an interim bond following the first show-cause notice.
- The second notice alleged violation of bond conditions, though Section 129(h) does not exist in the BNSS.
- The applicant contended that the proceedings were initiated due to harassment by the complainant, not due to any habitual conduct or threat to public tranquility.
Procedural History
- FIR Registration: CR No. 81 of 2025 was registered for offences under the BNS.
- First Show-Cause Notice: Issued on 5 May 2025 under Section 129(g)(h) of the BNSS in Chapter Case No. 7 of 2025.
- Interim Bond: Executed by the applicant pursuant to the first notice.
- Second Show-Cause Notice: Issued on 1 October 2025 under Section 141 of the BNSS in Court Case No. 28 of 2025, alleging bond violation.
- Present Application: Filed under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking quashing of both notices.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought the quashing of:
- The show-cause notice dated 5 May 2025 issued under Section 129(g)(h) of the BNSS.
- The show-cause notice dated 1 October 2025 issued under Section 141 of the BNSS.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 129 of the BNSS permits the initiation of security proceedings against an individual based on a single offence, absent evidence of habitual conduct or a demonstrable threat to public peace.
Arguments Presented
For the Applicant
- Habitual Offender Requirement: The applicant argued that Section 129 of the BNSS is intended for habitual offenders, not individuals involved in isolated incidents.
- Harassment Allegation: The proceedings were initiated due to harassment by the complainant, not due to any conduct warranting security measures.
- Legal Error: The notice dated 1 October 2025 incorrectly cited Section 129(h), which does not exist in the BNSS.
- Student Status: The applicant is a student with no history of criminal conduct, rendering the security proceedings unjustified.
For the Respondent-State
- Legality of Proceedings: The respondent supported the action, contending that the proceedings were initiated in accordance with law following the registration of the FIR.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined Section 129 of the BNSS, which empowers an Executive Magistrate to require security for good behaviour from individuals who:
- Are habitual offenders (e.g., robbers, thieves, or receivers of stolen property).
- Habitually commit offences involving breach of peace or other specified statutes.
- Are so desperate and dangerous as to render their being at large hazardous to the community.
The Court observed:
"A perusal of Section 129 clearly shows that the power thereunder is to be exercised where a person is found to be a habitual offender. The show-cause notices dated 5th May 2025 and 1st October 2025 have been issued under Section 129(g)(h) of the BNSS. A bare perusal of Section 129 shows that there is no provision namely Section 129(h). As far as Section 129(g) is concerned, what is contemplated is that a person is so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large without security hazardous to the community."
The Court further noted:
- The material on record did not establish that the applicant was a habitual offender or posed a hazard to the community.
- Only one FIR (CR No. 81 of 2025) and one non-cognizable complaint (NC) were registered against the applicant, both arising from the same set of allegations.
- The allegations pertained to sexual harassment, not conduct indicative of habitual criminality or a threat to public peace.
The Verdict
The Bombay High Court allowed the criminal application and quashed both show-cause notices:
- The notice dated 5 May 2025 issued under Section 129(g)(h) of the BNSS in Chapter Case No. 7 of 2025.
- The notice dated 1 October 2025 issued under Section 141 of the BNSS in Court Case No. 28 of 2025.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Security Proceedings Require Proof of Habitual Conduct
- Section 129 of the BNSS cannot be invoked based on a single offence unless the individual qualifies as a habitual offender or poses a demonstrable threat to the community.
- Practitioners must ensure that security proceedings are supported by evidence of repeated criminal conduct or a pattern of behaviour that endangers public peace.
Legal Errors in Notices Can Be Fatal
- The Court highlighted the absence of Section 129(h) in the BNSS, demonstrating that procedural inaccuracies can undermine the validity of notices.
- Legal practitioners should scrutinize show-cause notices for compliance with statutory provisions to identify grounds for challenge.
Protection Against Harassment
- The judgment reinforces that security proceedings cannot be used as a tool for harassment, particularly in cases involving personal disputes.
- Courts will intervene where proceedings are initiated without sufficient legal basis or are motivated by ulterior motives.
