Click the Play button to listen to article

The Delhi High Court today dismissed a plea by National President of All India Students Association (AISA) Neha Bora challenging a notice to execute a personal bond of ₹10,000 with one surety to maintain peace during an inquiry, after she was detained at Mandi House during a protest on October 16.

Justice Subramonium Prasad while pronouncing the order said that there were "adequate safeguards" and directions issued to the Special Executive Magistrate "to take care" and to give all materials to Bora, before passing any order into conduct of enquiry. 

Bora challenged an October 17 notice issued by a Special Executive Magistrate under Sections 126 (Magistrate may show cause an individual why peace bond may not be executed if he receives information that a person is likely commit a breach of the peace) and 130(when the Magistrate acting under section 126, section 127, section 128 or section 129, deems it necessary to require any person to show cause under he shall make an order in writing mentioning certain particulars) BNSS, read with Section 135(3) BNSS.

Under Section 135(3) Magistrate can, for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct the person in respect of whom the order under section 130 has been made to execute a bond or bail bond, for keeping the peace or maintaining good behaviour until the conclusion of the inquiry and may detain him in custody until such bond or bail bond is executed or, in default of execution, until the inquiry is concluded. The proviso states where no proceedings are taken against a person under sections 127, 128, or 129 then such person shall not be directed to execute a bond or bail bond for maintaining good behaviour.

Section 135(1) empowers magistrate to inquire into the truth of the information upon which action has been taken against a person who appears, based on show cause notice under Section 130. 

Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan appearing for Bora said that she, a leader of AISA, had made a protest call on October 16 which was peaceful and she had never called for any violence. He also argued that there was nothing wrong in seeking a regime change in a democracy.

Sankaranarayanan said that the notice was mechanical, as for seeking an interim bond also, a preliminary enquiry is essential before inviting the individuals response on interim bond.

On the other hand, ASG Sharma said that Section 126 has a wide band of the subjective satisfaction which need not translate itself into evidence or fact but should reflect what information was received.

The ASG said that Section 163 CrPC was invoked in the area including Mandi House from Bora was detained and that 

Bora sought quashing of the notice and the proceedings arising from it, besides a direction restraining the authorities from taking coercive action against her.

It stated that Bora had called for a peaceful gathering at Mandi House at 5 PM on October 16 to unfurl the national flag at the Central Park in Connaught Place as a part of protests against the Chief Election Commissioner. She alleges that she was detained at around 5:30 PM, taken to an undisclosed location and subsequently to R.K. Puram Police Station, where she was held overnight before being released at 6 AM on October 17.

The notice, received by her on October 18, cites alleged sloganeering at Mandi House, repeated protests around Jantar Mantar despite prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS, and the allegation that she instigated people to participate in a protest at Connaught Place on October 16.

The petition contended that the notice does not disclose any material establishing a likelihood of breach of peace, which is a necessary precondition for initiating preventive proceedings under Section 126 of the BNSS.

Counsel for Petitioner: Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, with Advocates Abhik Chimni, Pranjal Abrol, Moksha Sharma, Ayan Dasgupta, Gurupal singh, Kartik Venu, Vishal Sinha, Kanishk Garg, Indumugi C and Aayushman Aggarwal

Counsel for Respondent: ASG Chetan Sharma along with CGSC Ashish Dixit

Tags:    
Case Title :  Neha Bora v. State