BNSS | Person Cannot Be Detained For Breach Of Interim Bond Pending Preventive Inquiry: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court held that a person cannot be taken into custody merely for alleged breach of an interim bond for good behaviour executed during preventive proceedings, clarifying that detention under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is permissible only when there is a breach of a final bond ordered after completion of the statutory inquiry. Justice Dr. Ajoy Kumar...
The Calcutta High Court held that a person cannot be taken into custody merely for alleged breach of an interim bond for good behaviour executed during preventive proceedings, clarifying that detention under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is permissible only when there is a breach of a final bond ordered after completion of the statutory inquiry. Justice Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee made this observation while setting aside an order of an Executive Magistrate that had cancelled the petitioner's interim bond and directed his detention during the pendency of preventive proceedings.
The proceedings had been initiated under Section 129 of the BNSS on a police report alleging that the petitioner was a habitual offender involved in serious offences and posed a threat to public peace. During the pendency of the inquiry, the Executive Magistrate directed the petitioner to execute an interim bond with sureties under Section 135(3) BNSS. Subsequently, after the petitioner was arrested in another criminal case, the Magistrate cancelled the interim bond and ordered his detention under Section 141 BNSS on the ground that the conditions of the bond had been breached.
Examining the statutory scheme, the High Court clarified that an interim bond under Section 135(3) BNSS is only a temporary measure imposed during the pendency of the inquiry and does not amount to a final order directing security for good behaviour. The Court observed that the power to detain a person under Section 141 arises only when a final order directing security has been passed under Section 136 BNSS and the Magistrate is satisfied that the bond has been violated. In the present case, no such final order had been passed and the inquiry itself had not been concluded.
The Court also noted that the Executive Magistrate had cancelled the interim bond and ordered detention without recording evidence, examining witnesses, or completing the inquiry mandated under the statute. Emphasising that preventive provisions affecting personal liberty must be strictly followed, the Court held that detention based solely on the alleged breach of an interim bond was without jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the order directing custody. However, it clarified that the Magistrate remains at liberty to seek a fresh interim bond if circumstances so require during the pendency of the inquiry, or to forfeit the bond amount in accordance with law.
Case: Rakesh Kumar Singh v. State of West Bengal & Anr.
Case No: CRR 5090/2025