सं Samvidhan

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

Section 136

Order to give security

Why this exists

This provision continues India's long-standing 'preventive justice' framework, inherited from the colonial-era Criminal Procedure Code (originally sections like 106-124, later CrPC Section 118), which allows courts to bind over people believed likely to disturb public peace or repeat bad conduct — without waiting for an actual crime. The safeguards here (matching the earlier notice, keeping amounts reasonable, protecting children) were built in to prevent magistrates from using this preventive power arbitrarily or punitively, since it restricts liberty before any offence has occurred.

How courts read it

Under the identically-worded predecessor, Section 118 of the CrPC, courts have generally held that magistrates must apply judicial mind and cannot impose security that exceeds what was proposed in the initial order, and that the amount must be tied to the person's means and the real risk involved, not used as an excessive or punitive measure. Judicial guidance has treated these preventive-detention-style powers as needing careful, proportionate use since they curtail liberty pre-emptively.

Common misconceptions
  • Myth: The Magistrate can increase the bond amount or extend its duration after the inquiry if they think the person is dangerous.
    Fact: The law specifically forbids this — the final bond cannot exceed the nature, amount, or duration already specified in the earlier order under Section 130.
  • Myth: A child accused under this process must personally sign the bond just like an adult.
    Fact: The law requires that only the child's sureties execute the bond, not the child themselves.