Security for Keeping the Peace and Good Behaviour (ss.125–143 BNSS) — BNSS (Criminal Law II) Notes

Security for Keeping the Peace and Good Behaviour (ss.125–143 BNSS)

Here the law does something unusual: it moves against a person who has committed no offence in the case at hand — a hothead likely to breach the peace, a suspected person concealing himself, a habitual thief. This is preventive justice: not “did he do it?” but “is he likely to?”. It runs before an Executive Magistrate, and it ends not in a sentence but in a bond.

A security proceeding under Chapter IX (ss.125–143 BNSS) is preventive, not punitive. Three features flow from that, each the opposite of a trial: it is before an Executive Magistrate (not a Judicial one); it is an inquiry (no charge, no conviction); and it ends in an order to execute a bond — imprisonment follows only if the person fails to furnish the bond or later breaches it.

A. When security may be demanded

Keeping the peace on conviction (s.125 [s.106 CrPC]). A court convicting a person of certain offences involving breach of the peace may order him to execute a bond to keep the peace for up to three years.
Keeping the peace in other cases (s.126 [s.107 CrPC]). An Executive Magistrate, on information that a person is likely to commit a breach of the peace, may require a bond for a period not exceeding one year.
Good behaviour — from persons disseminating seditious/other specified matter (s.127 [s.108 CrPC]); from suspected persons concealing their presence with a view to committing an offence (s.128 [s.109 CrPC]); and from habitual offenders (s.129 [s.110 CrPC]) — for a period not exceeding three years.

B. Procedure and consequence (ss.130–143)

The Magistrate makes a written order stating the substance of the information and calls on the person to show cause (s.130); after inquiry (s.132) he may order a bond with or without sureties; failure to furnish the bond leads to imprisonment (s.135); the order is subject to appeal (s.140).

🔑 The duration caps are the exam’s whole game: one year for keeping the peace (s.126) versus three years for good behaviour (ss.127–129). Never write “convicted” or “acquitted” on this topic.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — the wrong duration

Facts. On information that a person is likely to commit a breach of the peace, an Executive Magistrate requires a bond for three years.

Rule. For keeping the peace under s.126, the maximum period is one year; three years is the cap for good behaviour (ss.127–129).

Apply. The Magistrate has applied the good-behaviour cap to a keeping-the-peace case; three years exceeds the one-year limit.

Conclusion. The order is bad to the extent it exceeds one year. The decoy is that “three years is lawful” — true for good behaviour, wrong here.

Section 126(1) BNSS: “When an Executive Magistrate receives information that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity… he may… require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for keeping the peace for such period, not exceeding one year, as the Magistrate thinks fit.”

In Simple Terms: If someone is likely to breach the peace, an Executive Magistrate can make him give a bond to behave — but only for up to one year.

flowchart TD
    ROOT["Security proceedings ss.125-143<br/>PREVENTIVE, Executive Magistrate"]:::root
    ROOT --> A["Keeping the peace s.125 (on conviction, up to 3 yrs)"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> B["Keeping the peace s.126 (likely breach, MAX 1 YEAR)"]:::sidebox
    ROOT --> C["Good behaviour ss.127-129<br/>(seditious matter / suspected / habitual) MAX 3 YRS"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> D["Show cause s.130 - inquiry s.132 -<br/>bond; fail to furnish = jail s.135"]:::leaf
    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,stroke-width:1px,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    classDef sidebox fill:#FDE7C9,stroke:#B45309,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

Case Laws

Madhu Limaye v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Monghyr (1970) — security proceedings must observe natural justice; the person must know the substance of the information and be heard.
Gopalanachari v. State of Kerala (1980) — the “habitual offender” provisions must be used sparingly and not to harass; liberty is at stake.

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All BNSS (Criminal Law II) topics