Section 136 BNSS: Order to give security (Formerly Section 117 CrPC)

Section 136 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Order to give security

Official Bare Act Text

Override / Mandate Mens Rea (Intent) Actus Reus (Conduct) Punishment Limitation Monetary

If, upon such inquiry, it is proved that it is necessary for keeping the peace or maintaining good behaviour, as the case may be, that the person in respect of whom the inquiry is made should execute a bond or bail bond, the Magistrate shall make an order accordingly:

Provided that —

(a) no person shall be ordered to give security of a nature different from, or of an amount larger than, or for a period longer than, that specified in the order made under section 130;

(b) the amount of every bond or bail bond shall be fixed with due regard to the circumstances of the case and shall not be excessive;

(c) when the person in respect of whom the inquiry is made is a child, the bond shall be executed only by his sureties.

Statutory Defined Terms in this Section: (Click any term for official legal definition)

Inquiry Sec 2(1)(g) Investigation Sec 2(1)(h) Victim Sec 2(1)(w)

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 136

Section 136 provides that if, upon such inquiry, it is proved that it is necessary for keeping the peace or maintaining good behaviour that the person should execute a bond, the Magistrate shall make an order accordingly.

Proof on Inquiry: Must be proved by legal evidence adduced during the Section 135 inquiry.
Ceiling on Order: Order cannot: (1) be of different character from that specified in the Section 130 order; (2) exceed the amount specified; or (3) require sureties different from those specified.
Reasonable Sum: Amount of bond shall be fixed with due regard to the circumstances of the case and shall not be excessive.

Key Landmark Precedents:

Madhu Limaye v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate (1970) 3 SCC 746: The Supreme Court stressed that the final bond order must strictly conform to the preliminary notice and cannot exceed the terms originally proposed.
Moti Ram v. State of M.P. (1978) 4 SCC 47: Justice Krishna Iyer held that demanding excessive or exorbitant bond amounts violates fundamental liberty, as poor citizens are incarcerated through economic incapacity.

Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

If the magistrate demands sureties residing only in a particular tehsil or fixes an exorbitant bond of several lakhs, challenge the order under Section 136(b) as excessive and arbitrary.