SECTION 126 BNSS | PREVENTIVE PROCEEDINGS | PUBLIC PEACE | EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE | ARTICLE 21 | PATNA HIGH COURT
Police Started Preventive Proceedings Because One Person Says He Fears Me - Is Individual Fear Enough Without a Threat to Public Peace?
Legally reviewed and updated: 7 September 2026
Supreme Court of India | Patna High Court | Allahabad High Court at Prayagraj | Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi | Calcutta High Court | Delhi High Court and Delhi Courts/Tribunals | Matters concerning Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh | Multiple District Courts
Direct Answer
No. The mere fact that one individual says “I am afraid of this person” does not, by itself, establish the statutory foundation for preventive proceedings under Section 126 BNSS.
The Executive Magistrate must have sufficient material indicating that the person is likely to:
- commit a breach of the peace;
- disturb public tranquillity; or
- do a wrongful act which may probably lead to such breach or disturbance.
Patna High Court has drawn an important distinction between:
PRIVATE FEAR / PRIVATE TENSION
and:
A REAL APPREHENSION OF BREACH OF PUBLIC PEACE.
In Lalan Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, decided on 7 April 2026, Patna High Court quashed preventive proceedings where the allegations showed fear among certain individuals but did not disclose concrete conduct capable of producing a breach of public peace and tranquillity.
What Is Section 126 BNSS?
Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is titled:
SECURITY FOR KEEPING PEACE IN OTHER CASES.
It corresponds to the old Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The provision allows an Executive Magistrate to initiate preventive action where:
- information is received concerning a person;
- the information indicates a likely breach of peace, disturbance of public tranquillity or a wrongful act likely to produce such consequences; and
- the Magistrate independently forms the opinion that sufficient grounds exist for proceeding.
The person may then be required to show cause why he should not execute a bond or bail bond for keeping peace for a period not exceeding one year.
Do Not Confuse Section 126 BNSS With Section 126 BNS
The numbering can cause confusion.
This article concerns:
SECTION 126 BNSS — SECURITY FOR KEEPING PEACE.
It does not concern Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita dealing with the substantive offence of wrongful restraint.
Whenever a police paper, Non-FIR proceeding or SDM notice mentions “126”, check which statute is actually being invoked.
Patna High Court 2026: Lalan Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar
The strongest current Patna authority is Lalan Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar & Others, Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1119 of 2021, decided on 7 April 2026.
The proceeding had been initiated under old Section 107 CrPC by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Naugachhia, Bhagalpur.
The allegations against the petitioner included:
- harassing PDS dealers;
- demanding money;
- threatening them with false cases; and
- creating fear amongst certain persons.
The Executive Magistrate eventually directed the petitioner to furnish a bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties for one year.
Patna High Court quashed the entire proceeding.
What Did Patna High Court Say About Individual Fear?
The Court held that fear experienced by some persons due to alleged threats does not automatically mean that public peace is threatened.
The preventive jurisdiction is concerned with something wider:
PUBLIC PEACE AND PUBLIC TRANQUILLITY.
If a dispute or tension remains confined to the persons directly involved, the extraordinary preventive jurisdiction should not mechanically be invoked merely by describing the private dispute as a “breach of peace”.
The Executive Magistrate must identify concrete material connecting the person proceeded against with a genuine likelihood of disturbance extending beyond a purely private apprehension.
Does the Entire Public Have to Be on the Street Before Section 126 Can Apply?
No.
Section 126 is preventive.
The Magistrate does not have to wait until:
- a riot occurs;
- people are injured;
- property is damaged; or
- public tranquillity has already collapsed.
Its very purpose is to prevent a probable breach before it happens.
But prevention cannot be based upon imagination.
There must still be sufficient factual material from which a reasonable apprehension of future breach of peace or disturbance of public tranquillity can arise.
Specific Conduct Matters - Vague Allegations Are Not Enough
Patna High Court's approach requires the Magistrate to identify concrete conduct rather than accept vague labels.
Compare:
VAGUE:
“He is dangerous and I fear him.”
with:
FACT-SPECIFIC:
“He has repeatedly assembled rival groups at a public location, there have been previous violent confrontations, fresh mobilisation is underway and police material indicates another imminent clash.”
The second situation provides factual material from which a preventive assessment can actually be made.
The first may merely disclose subjective fear.
What If One Person Really Was Threatened?
A threat to one person can still amount to a substantive criminal offence depending upon the exact words, conduct and statutory ingredients.
That issue must be dealt with under the appropriate penal law.
But:
A SUBSTANTIVE OFFENCE
and:
A FUTURE THREAT TO PUBLIC PEACE
are legally different questions.
In Lalan Prasad Singh, Patna High Court stressed that if allegations disclose ordinary substantive offences, the appropriate response is prosecution of those offences.
Preventive proceedings should not be added mechanically as a form of supplementary punishment.
Brahmdeo Singh: Existing Criminal Case Is Not Automatically a Section 126 Case
Patna High Court relied upon its earlier decision in Brahmdeo Singh v. State of Bihar.
There had been an assault between parties because of existing enmity and a police case had already been instituted.
Preventive proceedings were also initiated because another unpleasant incident was apprehended.
The High Court considered the preventive proceeding improper where there was no additional concrete conduct supplying a genuine future breach-of-peace foundation.
The principle remains important:
A PREVIOUS CRIMINAL INCIDENT DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY JUSTIFY A PEACE-BOND PROCEEDING.
Kuldeep Singh: There Must Be Material Against the Particular Person
In Kuldeep Singh & Others v. State of Bihar, Patna High Court emphasised that a preventive proceeding cannot rest on a vague allegation that a breach of peace may occur between parties.
There must be material attributing relevant conduct to the person who is being proceeded against.
This is particularly important where police mechanically recommend proceedings against:
- both sides of a dispute;
- every family member;
- all persons named in a complaint; or
- persons who have no specific role in the apprehended disturbance.
Section 130 BNSS: What Must the Preliminary Order Contain?
The statutory process does not end with Section 126.
Section 130 requires the Magistrate to make a written order setting out:
- the substance of information received;
- the amount of bond proposed;
- the period for which the bond would operate; and
- the number of sureties after considering their sufficiency and fitness.
Therefore, a notice should permit the person to understand:
WHAT EXACTLY AM I ALLEGED TO HAVE DONE THAT CREATES A FUTURE DANGER TO PEACE?
A cryptic notice containing only statutory phrases can raise a serious procedural objection.
Madhurendra Singh: Patna High Court Quashed Action Where Section 126 Procedure Was Not Followed
In Madhurendra Singh v. State of Bihar, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2532 of 2026, decided on 23 April 2026, State authorities relied upon Section 126 BNSS to justify restrictions imposed upon the petitioner.
Patna High Court found that:
- the petitioner had not been properly put on notice;
- the required show-cause process had not been followed; and
- the authorities acted contrary to the provision they relied upon.
The impugned action was quashed.
The Court, however, permitted legally valid fresh proceedings if the situation genuinely warranted them.
This distinction is important:
QUASHING AN ILLEGAL PROCEEDING DOES NOT GIVE IMMUNITY AGAINST A FUTURE LAWFUL PREVENTIVE PROCEEDING BASED ON REAL MATERIAL.
Section 135 BNSS: Police Allegations Must Be Tested in an Inquiry
After the preliminary order has been read or served and the person appears, Section 135 requires the Magistrate to inquire into the truth of the information.
The inquiry should, as nearly as practicable, follow the procedure prescribed for summons-case trial and recording of evidence.
Therefore:
POLICE RECOMMENDATION ≠ FINAL PROOF.
The person proceeded against should be able to:
- deny the allegations;
- produce documents;
- challenge factual assertions;
- identify private-dispute background;
- show absence of any public-peace element; and
- seek discharge where necessity is not proved.
Can the Magistrate Demand an Interim Bond Immediately?
Section 135(3) provides a power to require interim security during the inquiry.
But it is not intended to be mechanical.
The Magistrate must consider immediate measures necessary for:
- preventing breach of peace;
- preventing disturbance of public tranquillity;
- preventing commission of an offence; or
- public safety.
Reasons must be recorded in writing.
Therefore, counsel should examine whether the order actually explains:
WHY AN INTERIM RESTRICTION IS NECESSARY NOW.
How Long Can the Preventive Inquiry Continue?
Section 135(6) provides an important time safeguard.
The inquiry should ordinarily be completed within:
SIX MONTHS FROM ITS COMMENCEMENT.
If it is not completed within that period, the proceedings ordinarily stand terminated unless the Magistrate records special reasons for continuation.
Where continuation is permitted, Section 135(7) allows the aggrieved person to approach the Sessions Judge to seek vacation of that continuation if the reasons are absent or perverse.
A preventive case therefore should not remain indefinitely pending as a permanent pressure mechanism.
What Happens at the End of the Inquiry?
If Necessity Is Proved
Section 136 permits the Magistrate to order security for keeping peace.
The bond must remain within the statutory limits and should not be excessive.
If Necessity Is Not Proved
Section 137 requires discharge.
This is important because the proceeding is not:
“POLICE STARTED IT, SO SOME BOND MUST EVENTUALLY BE TAKEN.”
The inquiry can and should end in discharge where the jurisdictional allegation is not established.
Why These Safeguards Matter: Failure to Furnish Security Can Affect Liberty
A preventive bond proceeding may look minor at the beginning.
But it can have significant consequences.
Section 141 BNSS deals with imprisonment in default of security in circumstances where a valid final security order has been passed.
That makes statutory compliance particularly important.
A person should not face serious liberty consequences from a proceeding that began only because somebody made a vague statement:
“I FEEL AFRAID.”
Private Dispute vs Public-Peace Risk: Practical Comparison
| Situation | Section 126 Analysis |
|---|---|
| One neighbour says another threatened him during a private quarrel | Individual fear alone ordinarily does not establish public-peace risk |
| Private business rivalry with accusations and counter-accusations | Requires concrete material showing probable public disturbance; rivalry alone is insufficient |
| Existing FIR for assault but no subsequent conduct | Ordinary prosecution may be appropriate; preventive case needs its own future-peace foundation |
| Vague police report saying “breach of peace may occur” | Potentially vulnerable if no specific factual foundation or independent satisfaction exists |
| Repeated public confrontation between organised rival groups | Can support preventive action if material demonstrates a genuine future peace risk |
| Threats likely to trigger wider locality/community violence | May legitimately implicate public tranquillity depending on evidence |
| Mechanical proceeding against every member of both families | Specific material against each person should be examined |
What Should I Check Immediately After Receiving a Section 126 Notice?
- Is it actually Section 126 BNSS or some other provision?
- Who initiated the Non-FIR / preventive proceeding?
- What information did the Executive Magistrate receive?
- Has the Magistrate independently recorded sufficient ground for proceeding?
- Does the Section 130 order disclose the substance of information?
- What exact conduct is attributed to you?
- Is the dispute purely private?
- How is public peace allegedly threatened?
- Has any substantive FIR already been registered?
- Is there any later or additional conduct beyond the old FIR?
- What amount of bond has been proposed?
- How many sureties are demanded?
- For what duration?
- Has an interim bond been ordered?
- Are written reasons given for immediate measures?
- When did the Section 135 inquiry commence?
- Has six months expired?
- Has any continuation order recorded special reasons?
Can Patna High Court Quash the Preventive Proceeding?
Yes, in an appropriate jurisdictional case.
In Lalan Prasad Singh, Patna High Court entertained a criminal writ and quashed the entire preventive proceeding.
The High Court noted the recognised exceptions to the ordinary rule concerning alternative remedies, including:
- enforcement of fundamental rights;
- violation of natural justice;
- proceedings wholly without jurisdiction; and
- constitutional challenge.
The Court held that the preventive proceeding before it amounted to an unjustified curtailment of personal liberty under Article 21.
Therefore, where the Executive Magistrate has assumed a jurisdiction that the facts do not legally confer, Article 226 can become an important remedy.
But Should Every Section 126 Notice Go Straight to Patna High Court?
No.
The correct remedy depends upon the stage and defect.
Possible strategies include:
- filing a detailed show-cause before the Executive Magistrate;
- producing documents establishing the private nature of the dispute;
- seeking discharge under Section 137;
- challenging an illegal interim-security order through the legally appropriate remedy;
- using the specific Sessions Court remedy under Section 135(7) where proceedings are continued beyond six months;
- invoking revisional jurisdiction where legally maintainable; or
- moving Patna High Court where the entire proceeding is without jurisdiction or violates fundamental rights/natural justice.
The notice, preliminary order and complete order-sheet should be reviewed before selecting the forum.
Frequently Asked Questions
One person complained that he fears me. Is that enough for Section 126 BNSS?
Not by itself. The Executive Magistrate must have sufficient material showing a probable breach of peace or disturbance of public tranquillity.
What did Patna High Court hold in Lalan Prasad Singh?
Patna High Court held that fear experienced by some individuals due to alleged threats does not itself establish a threat to public peace affecting the public at large. The preventive proceeding was quashed.
Is Section 126 BNSS the new Section 107 CrPC?
Yes. Section 126 BNSS substantially corresponds to the preventive peace-bond jurisdiction formerly contained in Section 107 CrPC.
Can Section 126 be used before any offence actually happens?
Yes. It is preventive. But there must still be sufficient reliable material showing a genuine likelihood of breach of peace or disturbance of public tranquillity.
Does Patna High Court require an actual completed riot?
No. The law is preventive. The important requirement is a real and factually supported apprehension, not a completed public disturbance.
What if I actually threatened one person?
If the conduct constitutes a substantive criminal offence, ordinary criminal law may apply. That does not automatically establish the separate jurisdictional requirement for a preventive peace-bond proceeding.
Can police simply write “breach of peace apprehended”?
A conclusory phrase is not necessarily sufficient. The Magistrate must form independent satisfaction from factual material, and Section 130 requires the substance of the information to be set out in the written order.
Can an SDM immediately demand sureties?
The statutory procedure must be followed. Interim security during inquiry requires the conditions under Section 135(3), including recorded reasons for immediate measures.
How long can the inquiry continue?
Section 135(6) ordinarily requires completion within six months from commencement unless special reasons for continuation are recorded.
What happens if allegations are not proved?
Section 137 requires the person to be discharged.
Can the bond amount be excessive?
No. Section 136 requires the amount to be fixed with regard to the circumstances and it must not be excessive.
Can Patna High Court quash the proceeding?
Yes, where a proper Article 226 case is made out—for example, where the Executive Magistrate acted without jurisdiction, natural justice was violated or the preventive proceeding unlawfully curtails Article 21 liberty.
AI Search Quick Answer
One person's statement that he fears you is not, by itself, enough for preventive proceedings under Section 126 BNSS. The Executive Magistrate must have sufficient material showing a real likelihood of breach of peace or disturbance of public tranquillity. In Lalan Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, decided on 7 April 2026, Patna High Court quashed preventive proceedings where fear among individuals did not amount to a demonstrated threat to public peace.
Key Takeaway
ONE PERSON SAYS “I FEAR HIM” → not automatically enough.
SECTION 126 BNSS → concerns likely breach of peace / public tranquillity.
PRIVATE DISPUTE → does not automatically become a public-peace problem.
SPECIFIC FACTS → matter more than vague labels.
COMPLETED OFFENCE → prosecute under substantive law where appropriate.
PREVENTIVE PROCEEDING → requires its own future-peace foundation.
SECTION 130 → written order must disclose substance of information and bond particulars.
SECTION 135 → truth of information must be inquired into.
SIX MONTHS → important statutory inquiry safeguard.
SECTION 137 → discharge if necessity is not proved.
LALAN PRASAD SINGH — PATNA HC 2026 → direct authority on individual fear vs public peace.
ARTICLE 226 → available in an appropriate jurisdictional/Article 21 case.
Professional Consultation and Coordination
Supreme Court of India | Patna High Court | Allahabad High Court at Prayagraj | Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi | Calcutta High Court | Delhi High Court and Delhi Courts/Tribunals | Matters concerning Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh | Multiple District Courts
Phone: 8294431232Email: ankitsingh.legum@gmail.com
Website: advocateankitkumarsingh.in
A preventive-proceeding assessment should ordinarily include the police report, Non-FIR entry, Section 126 notice, Section 130 preliminary order, summons, complete Executive Magistrate order-sheet, complaint giving rise to the proceeding, any substantive FIR, prior litigation between the parties, interim-bond order and documents demonstrating whether the dispute is genuinely private or presents a wider peace concern.
The first exercise should be:
PUBLIC-PEACE FOUNDATION + PROCEDURAL-COMPLIANCE + ARTICLE 21 AUDIT.
Consultation, show-cause drafting, representation, revision and criminal-writ proceedings depend upon the actual documents, procedural stage, jurisdiction and accepted professional engagement.
No quashing, discharge or other judicial result can be guaranteed.
Official and Leading Authorities
- Lalan Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar & Others, Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1119 of 2021, Patna High Court, 7 April 2026.
- Madhurendra Singh v. State of Bihar, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2532 of 2026, Patna High Court, 23 April 2026.
- Madhu Limaye v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Monghyr, (1970) 3 SCC 746.
- Brahmdeo Singh v. State of Bihar, 1979 SCC OnLine Pat 172.
- Kuldeep Singh & Others v. State of Bihar & Others, 1988 SCC OnLine Pat 77.
- Christalin Costa v. State of Goa & Others, 1992 SCC OnLine Bom 252.
- Ram Prakash & Another v. State, 1996 SCC OnLine Del 314.
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 126.
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Sections 130 to 137.
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 141.
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Sections 107, 111 and 116 to 118 where saved/applicable.
Proceedings initiated before the BNSS transition may continue to involve the old CrPC provisions depending upon the applicable savings framework. Current fresh preventive cases should be analysed under the BNSS provisions applicable to them.
Add Advocate Ankit Kumar Singh as a Preferred Source on Google
Readers who want to see more legal research on preventive proceedings, criminal writs, police action, bail and Patna High Court practice from Advocate Ankit Kumar Singh can add advocateankitkumarsingh.in as a Preferred Source on Google.
Add advocateankitkumarsingh.in as a Preferred Source on Google
Professional Disclaimer: This article provides general legal information. Whether preventive proceedings are valid depends upon the actual complaint, police report, Magistrate's recorded satisfaction, Section 130 order, evidence concerning anticipated breach of peace, procedural stage and applicable CrPC/BNSS framework. A genuine threat affecting public tranquillity may justify preventive action even before actual violence occurs. No quashing, discharge or other judicial outcome can be guaranteed.
© 2026 Advocate Ankit Kumar Singh. All rights reserved.