Security For Keeping Peace Under Crpc
1. Overview: Security for Keeping the Peace under CrPC
The CrPC contains provisions that empower magistrates to require persons likely to disturb public peace or commit a breach of peace to give security for keeping the peace or good behavior.
This is primarily found under:
Section 106 CrPC: Security for keeping the peace.
Section 107 CrPC: Security for good behavior in cases likely to cause a breach of peace.
Section 108 CrPC: Security for good behavior in other cases.
Section 109 CrPC: Security for good behavior from habitual offenders.
Purpose:
To prevent the commission of offenses and maintain public order.
To require individuals whose behavior is threatening to give a bond guaranteeing peaceable conduct.
Failure to provide security can lead to detention or prosecution.
2. Detailed Explanation of Sections
Section 106 CrPC – Security for Keeping the Peace
Applicable where a magistrate receives information that a person is likely to commit a breach of peace or disturb public tranquility.
Magistrate may order the person to enter into a bond with or without sureties, to keep the peace.
Section 107 CrPC – Security for Good Behavior
If a person is likely to commit a specific offense which causes a breach of peace or disturbance.
Magistrate can demand security for good behavior for up to one year.
Section 108 CrPC – Security for Good Behavior in Other Cases
Covers cases other than those in Section 107, but still require security for good behavior.
Section 109 CrPC – Security from Habitual Offenders
Magistrate can require habitual offenders to enter into a bond for good behavior for up to three years.
3. Important Case Laws on Security for Keeping the Peace
Case 1: K.S. Ram Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1961 SC 1037
Facts: The petitioner challenged the order of the magistrate requiring him to give security for keeping the peace.
Issue: Whether the magistrate's power under Section 106 can be exercised arbitrarily.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that magistrates must exercise the power judiciously based on credible information, not arbitrarily.
Significance: Emphasized the need for reasonable grounds before requiring security.
Case 2: Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1978 SC 1675
Facts: The petitioner was required to give security for good behavior under Section 107 CrPC.
Issue: Whether the preventive detention and security orders violate fundamental rights.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that preventive action must balance individual liberty and public order. The magistrate's discretion must be exercised fairly.
Significance: Preventive powers must respect constitutional safeguards.
Case 3: Joginder Kumar v. State of UP, AIR 1994 SC 1349
Facts: Challenged illegal preventive arrests and orders for security for good behavior.
Issue: Scope of police and magistrate powers in preventive measures.
Judgment: Police and magistrates must act on reasonable grounds and follow due procedure. Arbitrary exercise of power is unconstitutional.
Significance: Reinforced limits on preventive powers under CrPC Sections 106-109.
Case 4: Raj Narain v. Union of India, AIR 1975 SC 2299
Facts: The issue was regarding orders for security from persons who were politically active and deemed likely to disturb peace.
Issue: Whether preventive orders violate fundamental freedoms.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that preventive orders under Sections 106 and 107 should not be used to curb legitimate political activity.
Significance: Recognized the need to protect democratic freedoms while maintaining peace.
Case 5: Bhagat Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 384
Facts: The accused was ordered to furnish security for good behavior.
Issue: Whether habitual offenders can be required to provide security under Section 109.
Judgment: The Court held that habitual offenders can be restrained by requiring security for good behavior to prevent future offenses.
Significance: Validated the preventive role of security bonds for habitual offenders.
Case 6: Rameshbhai D. Bhatt v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1995 SC 187
Facts: Order demanding security for good behavior was challenged.
Issue: Whether such an order is valid without clear evidence of likelihood to disturb peace.
Judgment: The Supreme Court reiterated that such preventive orders must be based on credible and reliable information.
Significance: Ensured that security orders are not used arbitrarily or as tools of oppression.
4. Summary of Legal Principles
Orders for security under Sections 106-109 CrPC are preventive in nature, aimed at maintaining public peace.
Magistrates must have credible information or reasonable suspicion before passing such orders.
The power must be exercised judiciously, fairly, and not arbitrarily.
These powers are subject to fundamental rights and cannot be used to suppress legitimate activity.
Failure to give security can lead to detention or prosecution.
Security bonds provide a tool to keep habitual offenders or potentially dangerous persons in check.
RELATED Blog
0 comments