Sathish Kumar v. The Sub Divisional Administrative Magistrate and

Madras HC9 Oct 2025WP Crl./443/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Preventive proceeding under Sections 129 and 130 BNSS; show-cause order for bond of Rs.10,000/- to keep good behaviour for one year quashed/set aside; writ of certiorari under Article 226; FIRs Crime No.43/2019 (Ss.341, 143, 188 IPC r/w 7(1)(a) CLA Act), Crime No.206/2020 (Ss.269, 270, 294(b), 353, 506(ii) IPC) and Crime No.241/2022 (Ss.294(b), 323, 324, 506(i) IPC) all concluded — quashed, closed by police, acquittal; no pending criminal case; citing non-pending FIRs a clear violation of law; Sub Divisional Administrative Magistrate / RDO Ranipet; Walajapet Police Station; Madras High Court; Justice N. Sathish Kumar; decided 09.10.2025.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order (Case No.116/2025, Na.Ka.A2/1094/2025 dated 27.02.2025) set aside; writ petition allowed; connected miscellaneous petition closed. ¶40-41

Sathish Kumar Vs The Sub Divisional Administrative… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order (Case No.116/2025, Na.Ka.A2/1094/2025 dated 27.02.2025) set aside; writ petition allowed; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

¶40-41

Issue for consideration

Whether the show-cause order passed under Section 130 BNSS (flowing from Section 129 BNSS) directing the petitioner to execute a Rs.10,000/- good-behaviour bond can stand when the three FIRs cited therein are no longer pending. +1 more

¶32

Court's answer

The impugned order wrongly recites that three criminal cases are pending against the petitioner; in fact all three cases are already over and there is no criminal case pending against the petitioner.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

To issue any summons under Section 129 BNSS a proper procedure must be followed: the Magistrate must make an order in writing setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond, the term for which it is to be in force, and the number, character and class of sureties; the order under Section 130 BNSS must rest on proper information.

¶31

Key takeaways

Issuing summons under Section 129 BNSS by citing FIRs which are not pending is, in the view of this Court, nothing but a clear violation of law.ratio¶36-37
Since it rests on FIRs that are not pending, the impugned order cannot be sustainable and is accordingly set aside.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (N. Sathish Kumar, J., 09.10.2025), W.P.(Crl.) No.443 of 2025: A show-cause order under Section 130 BNSS (proceeding from Section 129 BNSS) directing the petitioner to show cause why he should not execute a Rs.10,000/- bond to keep good behaviour for one year — founded on three FIRs (Crime Nos.43 of 2019, 206 of 2020 and 241 of 2022) — was set aside. All three FIRs had terminated: one was already quashed by this Court, one was closed by the police, and one ended in acquittal, so no criminal case was pending against the petitioner. The Court held that issuing summons under Section 129 BNSS by citing FIRs which are not pending is a clear violation of law, and that an order under Section 129 BNSS must be made in writing setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond, its term, and the number, character and class of sureties, with the Section 130 order resting on proper information. Writ petition allowed; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

¶1

W.P.(Crl.) No.443 of 2025 and WPMP (Crl.) No.210 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 09.10.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.(Crl.) No.443 of 2025 and WPMP (Crl.) No.210 of 2025

Sathish Kumar

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Sub Divisional Administrative Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer Court Ranipet District Ranipet

¶11

State Rep. by The Inspector of Police Walajapet Police Station Ranipet District

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1 st respondent vide (Case No.116/2025) in Na.Ka.A2/1094/2025 dated 27.02.2025 on the file of the respondent and quash the same with regard to the petitioner.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sunil Kumar For Respondents : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Additional Public Prosecutor

¶15

1/6

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

W.P.(Crl.) No.443 of 2025 and WPMP (Crl.) No.210 of 2025

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This Writ Petition (Criminal) has been filed to quash the impugned order passed by the 1 st respondent vide (Case No.116/2025) Na.Ka.A2/1094/2025 dated 27.02.2025 under Section 130 of BNSS directing the petitioner to showcase as to why he should not be directed to execute a bond for Rs.10,000/- to keep good behaviour for a period of one year.

¶20

2. It is seen that the impugned order has been passed based on three FIRs registered against the petitioner in Crime No.43 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 341, 143, 188 IPC read with 7(1)(a) of CLA Act, Crime No.206 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 269, 270, 294(b), 353, 506(ii) IPC and Crime No.241 of 2022 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(i) IPC.

¶21

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that all the three FIRs are not pending at all. The FIR in Crime No.206 of 2020, was already quashed by this Court. Similarly, the FIR in Crime No.43 of 2019 was closed by the police and the FIR in Crime No.241 of 2022 was ended in acquittal.

¶22

4. As per the counter, it is the contention of the respondents police that since the petitioner involved in similar nature of offences, the Sub

¶23

2/6

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

W.P.(Crl.) No.443 of 2025 and WPMP (Crl.) No.210 of 2025

¶26

Divisional Administrative Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer initiated the proceedings under Sections 129 of BNSS as there is sufficient

¶27

cause to believe that the execution of bond to maintain good conduct is warranted.

¶28

5. I perused the entire materials available on record.

¶29

6. Admittedly, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is not

¶30

disputing about the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the closure of FIRs..

¶31

7. To issue any summon under Section 129 of BNSS, a proper procedure has to be followed. When the Magistrate, acting under Section 129 of BNSS, deems it necessary to require any person to show cause under such Section, he should make an order in writing setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond to be executed, the term for which it is to be in force and the number, character and class of sureties, must be specifically mentioned in the said order. The order under Section 130 of BNSS, must be with proper information.

¶32

8. In the present case, the impugned order indicates as three criminal cases are pending against the petitioner. In fact, it is incorrect. All the said three cases are already over and there is no criminal case pending against the petitioner. When there is no criminal case pending against the petitioner,

¶33

3/6

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

W.P.(Crl.) No.443 of 2025 and WPMP (Crl.) No.210 of 2025

¶36

issuing summons under Section 129 of BNSS by citing some FIRs which

¶37

are not pending, in view of this Court is nothing but a clear violation of law.

¶38

Therefore, the impugned order in view of this Court, cannot be sustainable.