Chandan Patekar & Others

Vs.

State of Goa & Others

__________________________________________________

WPCR Nos. 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56 of 2026

Page 1 of 24

April 7, 2026

Esha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 50 OF 2026

SHRI. CHANDAN PATEKAR, Son of Dharma

Patekar, aged about 40 years, married, Indian National,

residing at H. No. 370, Oxelbag, Pernem, Goa.

… PETITIONER

~ VERSUS ~

1. STATE OF GOA , Through Public

Prosecutor, High Court of Bombay at

Goa, Porvorim, Goa.

2. DEPUTY COLLECTOR & SDM,

Pernem Taluka, North Goa.

3. THE POLICE INSPECTOR, Pernem

Police Station, Pernem-Goa.

… RESPONDENTS

APPEARANCES:

for the Petitioner Mr. Athnain Naik

for the Respondents Mr. Pravin Faldessai, APP

WITH

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 51 OF 2026

1. MR. ABRAHAM CARDOZ, Son of Alex

Cardoz, 60 years of age, Indian National,

Businessman, and his wife,

2. MRS. PRISCILLA CARDOZ , daughter of

Xavier Barboza, 53 years of age, Indian National,

… PETITIONERS 2026:BHC-GOA:704-DB

Chandan Patekar & Others

Vs.

State of Goa & Others

__________________________________________________

WPCR Nos. 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56 of 2026

Page 2 of 24

April 7, 2026

Homemaker,

Both residents of Flat No. AT-2, Matrix Residency

Coop. Hsg. Society, Aquem Baixo, Navelim, South Goa,

Goa 403 707.

~ VERSUS ~

1. STATE OF GOA, Through the Public

Prosecutor, High Court of Bombay at

Goa, Porvorim, Goa.

2. THE POLICE INSPECTOR,

Calangute Police Station, Calangute, Goa.

3. DEPUTY COLLECTOR & SDM,

Mapusa Sub Division, Mapusa, Bardez -

Goa.

4. MR. GERALD PEREIRA , Major of

age, Indian National, Resident of Vistar

Residency, G2, Ground Floor, Block 2,

Behind Rosary Church, Caranzalem-Goa.

… RESPONDENTS

APPEARANCES:

for the Petitioners Mr. Savio Misquita

for Respondents 1, 2 & 3 Mr. S.G. Bhobe,PP

WITH

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 52 OF 2026

1. MRS. SURAKSHA PATEKAR , wife of

Chandan Patekar, aged 37 years, married,

residing at H. No. 370, Oxelbag, Pernem, Goa.

2. SHRI. CHANDAN PATEKAR , Son of

Dharma Patekar, aged about 40 years, married,

… PETITIONERS

Chandan Patekar & Others

Vs.

State of Goa & Others

__________________________________________________

WPCR Nos. 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56 of 2026

Page 3 of 24

April 7, 2026

Indian National, residing at H. No. 370, Oxelbag,

Pernem, Goa.

~ VERSUS ~

1. STATE OF GOA, Through the Public

Prosecutor, High Court of Bombay at

Goa, Porvorim, Goa.

2. DEPUTY COLLECTOR & SDM,

Pernem Taluka, North Goa.

3. THE POLICE INSPECTOR, Pernem

Police Station, Pernem-Goa.

… RESPONDENTS

APPEARANCES:

for the Petitioners Mr. Athnain Naik

for the Respondents Mr. S.G. Bhobe,PP

WITH

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 53 OF 2026

1. MR. MELWYN FERNANDES, Son of late

Shri. Manuel Francis Fernandes, Aged about 49

years, Married, In business, Indian National and

R/o H. No.317-B, Goncoi, Aldona, Bardez-Goa.

2. MRS. ZELIA MANISHA RODRIGUES E

FERNANDES, Wife of Mr. Melwyn

Fernandes, Aged about 44 years, Married, Indian

National and R/o H. No.317-B, Goncoi,

Aldona, Bardez-Goa.

… PETITIONERS

~ VERSUS ~

Chandan Patekar & Others

Vs.

State of Goa & Others

__________________________________________________

WPCR Nos. 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56 of 2026

Page 4 of 24

April 7, 2026

1. STATE OF GOA , Through Public

Prosecutor, Porvorim, Bardez, Goa.

2. THE POLICE INSPECTOR, Mapusa

Police Station, Mapusa, Bardez-Goa.

3. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND

SDM, MAPUSA SUB DIVISION,

Mapusa, Taluka of Bardez-Goa.

4. MR. SABINO RODRIGUES, Major in

age and R/at Flat No.UG-4, Columba

Residency, Grande Coimavaddo Aldona,

Bardez-Goa.

… RESPONDENTS

APPEARANCES:

for the Petitioners Mr. Deepak Gaonkar with Mr. Akhil

Govenkar

for Respondent 4 Mr. Rocha Pedro

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 54 OF 2026

1. MR. LUCIANO DAVID REMEDIOS

PINTO, Son of Aleixo Alen Eufemiano Dos

Remedios Pinto, 27 years of age, Indian

National, business, R/o H. No. 2/37-A,

Naikavaddo, Calangute-Bardez, Goa.

2. MISS CLEODOLINDA MARIA

ANTONIETA DOS REMEDIOS PINTO,

daughter of Aleixo Alen Eufemiano Dos

Remedios Pinto, 25 years of age, Indian

National, student, R/o H. No. 2/37-A,

Naikavaddo, Calangute-Bardez, Goa.

… PETITIONERS

~ VERSUS ~

Chandan Patekar & Others

Vs.

State of Goa & Others

__________________________________________________

WPCR Nos. 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56 of 2026

Page 5 of 24

April 7, 2026

1. STATE OF GOA, Through the Public

Prosecutor, High Court of Bombay at

Goa, Porvorim, Goa.

2. THE POLICE INSPECTOR,

Calangute Police Station, Calangute, Goa.

3. MR. SIMON D'SOUZA, C/o New

Creation Society, Gaurawado, Calangute,

Bardez, Major of age, Indian National,

businessman, Resident of H. No.1/235,

Holiday Street, Gaurawaddo Calangute,

Bardez, Goa.

4. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND

SDM, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa.

… RESPONDENTS

APPEARANCES:

for the Petitioners Mr. Nigel da Costa Frias with Mr.

Vishal Sawant and Mr. Shane

Coutinho

for Respondents 1, 2 & 4 Mr. S.G. Bhobe, PP

for Respondent 3 Mr. Anthony D’Silva with Ms.

Kimberley Gracias

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 56 OF 2026

1. MRS. GARGI BODKE, Daughter of Late

Vaman Keshav Bodke, 48 years of age, Indian

National, Service, R/o Flat No. F2, Laxmi Villa,

Tonca, Caranzalem Tiswadi, Goa.

2. MR. SUHAS BALCHANDRA ASNODKAR,

Son of Balchandra Asnodkar, 64 Years of age,

Indian National, Retired Central Government

… PETITIONERS

Chandan Patekar & Others

Vs.

State of Goa & Others

__________________________________________________

WPCR Nos. 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56 of 2026

Page 6 of 24

April 7, 2026

official, R/o Flat No. F-3 and S3, Laxmi Villa,

Tonca, Caranzalem,Tiswadi.

~ VERSUS ~

1. STATE OF GOA, Through the Public

Prosecutor, High Court of Bombay at

Goa, Porvorim, Goa.

2. THE POLICE INSPECTOR, Panaji

Police Station, Panaji, Goa.

3. MRS. MEDHA DILIP PARULEKAR,

Wife of Dilip Parulekar, Major of age,

Indian National, service, Resident of H.

No.353, Dhanwado, Saligao, Bardez, Goa.

4. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND

SDM, Collectorate Building, Panaji,

Tiswadi, Goa.

… RESPONDENTS

APPEARANCES:

for the Petitioners Mr. Nigel da Costa Frias with Mr.

Vishal Sawant and Mr. Shane

Coutinho

for Respondents 1, 2 & 4 Mr. S.G. Bhobe, PP

for Respondent 3 Mr. Anthony D’Silva with Ms.

Kimberley Gracias

CORAM : AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J.

RESERVED ON : 13

th

MARCH 2026

PRONOUNCED ON : 7

th

APRIL 2026

Chandan Patekar & Others

Vs.

State of Goa & Others

__________________________________________________

WPCR Nos. 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56 of 2026

Page 7 of 24

April 7, 2026

JUDGMENT:

1. Heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners.

2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith at the request and by

consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties. Mr. Bhobe, the

Learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Faldessai, on behalf of the State,

waive service.

3. All the above captioned Petitions raise a common issue pertaining to

the requirements of exercising powers under Chapter IX of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (

the BNSS) by the

Executive Magistrate. In particular, the issues are raised in respect of

the powers conferred on the Executive Magistrate under Section 126,

read with Section 130 of the BNSS. All the Petitioners have raised a

common issue; therefore, the Petitions are heard together.

4. In all the Petitions, the Deputy Collector, SDO and SDM (

the

Magistrate

) of the respective jurisdictions have issued show cause

notices under Section 126 of the BNSS. In one matter [Criminal Writ

Petition No. 56 of 2026], the notice issued by the Learned Magistrate

mentions that it is a notice under Section 130 of the BNSS. In effect,

the Learned Magistrate has invoked the power under Section 126 of

the BNSS and called upon the Petitioners to show cause as to why

the Petitioners should not be ordered to execute a bond or bail bond,

Chandan Patekar & Others

Vs.

State of Goa & Others

__________________________________________________

WPCR Nos. 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56 of 2026

Page 8 of 24

April 7, 2026

as more particularly mentioned in the respective notices sent to the

Petitioners.

5. The Petitioners are seeking the relief to quash and set aside the

notices issued by the Learned Magistrate and, consequently, set aside

the proceedings initiated by the Learned Magistrate under Section 126

of the BNSS. The main ground in all the above Petitions is that the

Learned Magistrate has not passed an order under Section 130 of the

BNSS and therefore, the Learned Magistrate does not have

jurisdiction under Section 126 of the BNSS to proceed with the

proceedings.

6. It is further submitted on behalf of the Petitioners that if the Learned

Magistrate failed to record the opinion that there is sufficient ground

to initiate proceedings under Section 126 of the BNSS, then it is

mandatory that the Learned Magistrate ought to pass an order in

writing, in which the Magistrate ought to set forth the substance of

the information received. The opinion of the Learned Magistrate has

to be recorded in the order to be passed under section 130 of the

BNSS. It is submitted that the proceedings under Section 126 of the

BNSS cannot be initiated by issuing mechanical orders by merely

stating that the Learned Magistrate is satisfied about the sufficient

ground. The requirement of the section is that the sufficiency of the

ground ought to be reflected in the order, which order ought to be

passed by the Learned Magistrate under Section 130 of the BNSS.

Chandan Patekar & Others

Vs.

State of Goa & Others

__________________________________________________

WPCR Nos. 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56 of 2026

Page 9 of 24

April 7, 2026

7. All the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners relied upon the

following judgments passed by this Court:-

(i)

Jitendra R. Deshprabhu & Others Vs. Executive

Magistrate & Another

, (1992) 1 Bom CR 233;

(ii)

Rajesh s/o Suryabhan Nayak Vs. State of

Maharashtra & Others

, (2006) 5 Mah LJ 243 and

(iii)

Tukaram Bharat Parab & Others Vs. State &

Others

, Criminal Writ Petition No. 4 of 2021 dated

15.02.2021.

8. By relying upon the above judgments, the Learned Counsel appearing

for all the Petitioners submitted that the issue raised in the present

Petitions is covered by these judgments and therefore, the Petitioners

are entitled to get the relief in the present Petitions.

9. I have considered these judgments.

10. In the case of

Jitendra R. Deshprabhu (supra) it is held as follows:-

“3. The impugned Order under section 111 Criminal

Procedure Code dated 1st August, 1990 and the proceedings

taken thereunder are challenged that the same are without

jurisdiction firstly that under no circumstances the petitioners can

be required to execute bonds pending the inquiry in Case No.

JM/MAG/39/90 as an interim measure to maintain peace

inasmuch as the petitioners are yet to appear before the Executive

Chandan Patekar & Others

Vs.

State of Goa & Others

__________________________________________________

WPCR Nos. 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56 of 2026

Page 10 of 24

April 7, 2026

Magistrate and at any rate, the proceedings have not commenced

before the Executive Magistrate and therefore, there is no question

of the Executive Magistrate requiring the petitioners to enter into

any bond by way of any interim measure. The order and the

proceedings are equally challenged on the other jurisdictional

grounds that at any rate the information received by the Executive

Magistrate from any quarter cannot lead him to the opinion that

the petitioners are likely to commit a breach of peace or disturb the

public tranquility or do any wrongful act that may occasion breach

of peace; that at any rate,

the Magistrate did not record

his opinion that the information received by him is

likely to lead to breach of peace or even for that

matter, commission of unlawful offences are likely

to cause, breach of peace and public tranquility and

it has been equally attacked on the ground that the allegations

found against the first petitioner cannot be held to be likely to

disturb public tranquility and in the same breath it has been

pointed out that reference to three cases which are under trial are

again qua specific individuals that by no stretch of imagination

there could be any allegation that they are likely to lead to breach of

peace or public tranquility. These being the challenges, Mr. S.K.

Kakodkar learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners read

before me the Order dated 1st August, 1990, to point out and

urge as to how this order made under section 111 Criminal

Procedure Code cannot be sustained on the grounds made by him.

He has relied upon a number of

authorities to show as to

how these proceedings under Chapter VIII of the

Criminal Procedure Code are viewed and further to

ascertain what is the scheme of the provisions

starting from section 107 onwards as to how the

Executive Magistrates are to exercise their

jurisdiction and further to show that such

jurisdiction is imitated to several predicates

Chandan Patekar & Others

Vs.

State of Goa & Others

__________________________________________________

WPCR Nos. 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56 of 2026

Page 11 of 24

April 7, 2026

mentioned in the sections themselves, one of which

being the requirement of giving the substance of

the information received.

4. Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code under the

heading “Security For Keeping. The Peace in other Cases”, says

that when an Executive Magistrate receives information that any

person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the

public information or to do any wrongful act that may probably

occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility and

is of the opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding he

may ??? hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause

why he should not be should ??? to execute a bond with or without

sureties, for keeping the peace for such period, no exceeding one

year.

From this section it is therefore clear that mere

receipt of the information by the Magistrate that

any person is likely to commit breach of the peace

or disturb public in tranquility or do any wrongful

act that may probably occasion breach of peace, is

not sufficient, but the Executive-Magistrate must

then reach his opinion that there is sufficient

ground for his proceeding in the matter.

5. A Magistrate is required to make an Order

under section 111 when he deems it necessary to

require any person to show cause, in the first place

in writing, setting forth the substance of the

information received, the amount of the bond to be executed

and the term for which it is to be in force. When a person is not

present in Court, it ts incumbent upon the Magistrate to issue

summons requiring that person to appear and when such a person

is in custody, a warrant directing the officer in whose custody he is

to bring that person before the Court. Section 114 mandates

that

Chandan Patekar & Others

Vs.

State of Goa & Others

__________________________________________________

WPCR Nos. 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56 of 2026

Page 12 of 24

April 7, 2026

every summons or warrant issued under section 113

shall be accompanied by a copy of the order made

under section 111

and such a summons or warrant as the case

may be, served on the person sought to be proceeded against.

Coining to section 116 the order made under section

111 is required to be read and explained to the

person concerned present in Court or when such

person appears or is brought before the Magistrate

either in compliance with the summons or the warrant as the case

may be, the Magistrate should proceed to inquire into the truth of

the information derived by him.

(emphasis supplied)

11. This Court in

Rajesh Suryabhan Nayak (supra) has held as under:-

“8. The next important aspect, which has come to our

knowledge by examining various record and proceedings from the

file of the Executive Magistrate is the manner in which orders are

passed under section 111 and section 116(3) of the Code. We are

shocked and surprised to note that so far as the Executive

Magistrate of Kotwali Division is concerned, the learned Special

Executive Magistrate has got a printed form incorporating both the

orders leaving certain margins so as to fill in the blanks/gaps

which only go to indicate that the two orders are passed in a rigid

manner without application of mind. We are afraid but have no

hesitation to observe that this practice and procedure is probably

followed by all the Executive Magistrates, who are Police Officers

of the rank of the Assistant Commissioner of Police functioning in

their respective Division throughout the city of Nagpur. The

Chandan Patekar & Others

Vs.

State of Goa & Others

__________________________________________________

WPCR Nos. 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56 of 2026

Page 13 of 24

April 7, 2026

learned Additional Public Prosecutor on seeking instructions has

made a statement that this practice would be discontinued

forthwith.

We may remind the Presiding Officers of

the Courts of Executive Magistrates that both the

orders i.e. 1) Under section 111 and other under

section 116(3) of the Code has to be passed by the

learned Magistrate on due application of mind.

Insofar as order under section 111 of the Code is

concerned, it enjoins upon the Magistrate to make

an order in writing, setting forth the substance of

information received, the amount of the bond to be

executed, term for which it is to be in force, and the

number, character and class of sureties (if any

required) and the Magistrate can only proceed to

pass an order under section 111 of the Code on the

basis of substance of the information received by

him, which has to be spelt out in the order, which

requires that there must be information of a nature

which convinces him that there is likelihood of a

breach of peace. The person, who gave information

might not be in a position to give details, but the

source of information might be sufficient to

convince the Magistrate that the breach of the

peace was likely and if he was convinced, the law

required him to take action. Needless to say, the

substance of information must be set forth in the

Chandan Patekar & Others

Vs.

State of Goa & Others

__________________________________________________

WPCR Nos. 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56 of 2026

Page 14 of 24

April 7, 2026

order which depends in each case upon the

circumstances of the case. Without an order under

section 111 of the Code, the Magistrate has no

competence to deal with such person. Insofar the order

which is required to be passed under section 116(3) of the Code -

The provisions of section 116(3) clearly mention that the order of

interim bond should be passed after recording reasons therefor. The

Magistrate while acting under sub-section (3) of section 116,

Criminal Procedure Code, has to make careful consideration as

regards to the separate case of emergency as contemplated under the

said section and he must be satisfied that immediate steps are

necessary. The fact that the police report indicated that the members

of the opposite-party were likely to create breach of the peace is not

sufficient to pass an order and it cannot be said that the Magistrate

has given a careful consideration to the existence of a case of

emergency when he merely relies on a police report without even

calling the police officer to the witness box. An order made under

sub-section (3) is bad if it is not accompanied by reasons recorded

in writing why the Magistrate wants to take the emergency

measures.”

(emphasis supplied)

12. This Court has made the following observations in paragraph 18 in

the case of

Tukaram Bharat Parab (supra):-

Chandan Patekar & Others

Vs.

State of Goa & Others

__________________________________________________

WPCR Nos. 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56 of 2026

Page 15 of 24

April 7, 2026

“18. Thus, in my considered opinion, the learned Magistrate has

not recorded his satisfaction that the information brought to his

notice is likely to cause the breach of peace or public tranquility.

The order under Section 111 of Cr.P.C. requires any

person to show cause, which should be in writing

“setting forth the substance of the information

received”. This part is missing in the order passed

by the Magistrate under Section 111 of Cr.P.C.

Though, it would be well within his competence in

a given case, to take into account the police report

for what it is worth in forming its own conclusion

on the material legally available to him. But this

exercise must indisputably be seen to be done and

the order of the Magistrate must clearly reflect

application of the Magistrate's own judicial mind to

the facts and circumstances properly placed before

him. The learned Magistrate failed to apply his

mind and also failed to mention in the order

substance on which he is relying. The learned Magistrate

also failed to follow proper procedure and on the day he received

reply, closed the proceedings without conducting any enquiry into the

truth and passed the order. Moreover, the condition imposed of

reporting P.I. for further six months is also not the part of the

show cause notice. Show cause notice must be as per form prescribed

in Schedule II of Cr.P.C.

The Magistrate cannot deviate

from the provisions of Cr.P.C. specifically Section

Chandan Patekar & Others

Vs.

State of Goa & Others

__________________________________________________

WPCR Nos. 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56 of 2026

Page 16 of 24

April 7, 2026

107 and 111 of Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the

Magistrate, any person is likely to commit a breach

of peace or disturb the public tranquility and there

is sufficient ground to proceed, he should require

such person to show cause why he should not be

ordered to execute the bond. While doing so, he has

to proceed in the manner provided in the Cr.P.C.

and not otherwise. There is a scheme which is in

preventive nature. Thus, the order under Section

111 of Cr.P.C. should necessarily be in writing

setting forth the substance of the information

received, details of amount of the bond to be

executed and number, character and class of

sureties. Section 116 of Cr.P.C. mandates that when an order

under Section 111 of Cr.P.C. is passed, the Magistrate shall

proceed to inquire into the truth of the information, upon which

action has been taken and to take such further evidence while

conducting enquiry, which shall be made as if it is a summons case.

The learned Magistrate failed to follow the mandates of these

provisions and the learned Additional Sessions Judge also did not

properly appreciated the facts and passed an erroneous order.”

(emphasis supplied)

13. Therefore, I agree that the issue raised in the present Petitions is

covered in the above-referred judgments of this Court. However, the

Petitioners submitted that in view of the mechanical orders passed by

Chandan Patekar & Others

Vs.

State of Goa & Others

__________________________________________________

WPCR Nos. 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56 of 2026

Page 17 of 24

April 7, 2026

the Learned Magistrate, which are resulting in serious prejudice to the

Petitioners and affecting the liberty of the Petitioners, this Court

ought to pass some guidelines, which can be sent to the Learned

Magistrates, who are empowered to exercise jurisdiction under

Chapter IX of the BNSS.

14. Mr. Bhobe, the Learned Public Prosecutor, fairly submitted that the

issue raised by the Petitioners is covered by the above referred

judgments, however, he submitted that sometimes the circumstances

require immediate action and therefore, the orders are passed stating

that the Learned Magistrate is satisfied, though the detailed reasoning

reflecting the opinion expressed on the information received by the

Learned Magistrate may not be there in detail in the notice issued

under Section 126 of the BNSS. He submitted that the notices

annexed by the Petitioners, which are issued under Section 126, ought

to be construed as orders passed under Section 130 of the BNSS.

15. I have heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners as

well as Mr. Bhobe, the Learned Public Prosecutor, at length. I have

also considered the above-referred judgments on the issue raised.

The issue has been covered since 1992, when the judgment was

passed by His Lordship Mr. Justice Kamat, in the case of

Jitendra R.

Deshprabhu

(supra). Thereafter, this issue has been considered by

the Division Bench of this Court in

Rajesh Nayak (supra) and again,

in

Tukaram Parab (supra). In fact, the Division Bench in the case of

Rajesh Nayak (supra), in paragraph 8 quoted above, has considered

Chandan Patekar & Others

Vs.

State of Goa & Others

__________________________________________________

WPCR Nos. 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56 of 2026

Page 18 of 24

April 7, 2026

the practice of issuing cyclostyled orders by the Executive Magistrate

in a particular area, and, after considering that practice, issued

directions to the Authority to comply with the provisions of law.

16. In the present six cases, the notices issued under Section 126, which

Mr. Bhobe wants me to consider as orders passed under Section 130,

are practically cyclostyled orders. Only the name, number or signature

of the Learned Magistrate has changed, and the contents are almost

identical. These orders cannot be considered as an order passed

under Section 130 of the BNSS. Each order to be passed by the

Learned Magistrate will vary because of the different facts and

circumstances of each case. Particularly, it will vary in view of the

information which the Learned Magistrate receives in respect of a

person who is likely to commit a breach of peace or disturb the

public tranquility or to do any wrongful act that may probably

occasion a breach of peace or disturb the public tranquility.

17. Section 126 of the BNSS reads as follows:-

“126. Security for keeping peace in other cases – (1) When an

Executive

Magistrate receives information that any

person

is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the

public tranquility or to do any wrongful act that may probably

occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility

and

is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for

proceeding, he may, in the manner hereinafter

Chandan Patekar & Others

Vs.

State of Goa & Others

__________________________________________________

WPCR Nos. 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56 of 2026

Page 19 of 24

April 7, 2026

provided, require such person to show cause why he should not

be ordered to execute a bond or bail bond for keeping the peace for

such period, not exceeding one year, as the Magistrate thinks fit.”

(emphasis supplied)

18. Section 126(1) of the BNSS requires that when an occasion arises as

stipulated in the section and if the Magistrate is of the opinion that

there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he may proceed in the

matter under Section 126 in the manner hereinafter provided. The

manner in which the Magistrate is to proceed is provided under

Section 130 of the BNSS, which reads as follows:-

“130. Order to be made.—When a Magistrate acting under

section 126, section 127, section 128 or section 129, deems it

necessary to require any person to show cause under such section,

he shall 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 of sureties, after considering the sufficiency and fitness of

sureties.”

(emphasis supplied)

19. Therefore, when the Magistrate acts under Section 126, 127, 128 or

129 of Chapter IX of the BNSS and he deems it necessary to require

any person to show cause under these sections, then he ought to pass

an order in writing as stipulated under Section 130 of the BNSS. The

Chandan Patekar & Others

Vs.

State of Goa & Others

__________________________________________________

WPCR Nos. 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56 of 2026

Page 20 of 24

April 7, 2026

order which is to be passed by the Learned Magistrate as stipulated

under Section 130 of the BNSS requires the Magistrate to set forth

the substance of the information received and his opinion that there

is sufficient ground for proceeding in the matter. The order under

Section 130 of BNSS is sine qua non for assuming jurisdiction to

proceed with the powers conferred under Section 126 of the BNSS.

20.The requirement of passing an order as contemplated under Section

126, read with Section 130 of the BNSS, is not a mere formality. The

reason being, the show cause notice under section 126 is solely based

on the substance of the information received by the Learned

Magistrate. Therefore, the order of the Learned Magistrate is the basis

of the proceedings. This is clear from the provisions of Section 131

of the BNSS. Section 131 requires that if the person in respect of

whom such an order is made is present in Court, then the order

shall be read over to him, or, if he so desires, the substance

thereof shall be explained to him. Therefore, to fulfil the

conditions of Section 131, there has to be an order in which the

substance of the information ought to be recorded.

21. Further, in a situation where there is a requirement to invoke the

provisions of Section 133 of the BNSS, the order passed under

Section 130 ought to accompany the summons or warrant to be

issued under Section 133 of the BNSS. The further proceedings of

inquiry as to the truth of information commence when an order

passed under Section 130 is read or explained to comply with the

Chandan Patekar & Others

Vs.

State of Goa & Others

__________________________________________________

WPCR Nos. 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56 of 2026

Page 21 of 24

April 7, 2026

provisions of Sections 131 and 133 of the BNSS. Therefore, the order

as contemplated under Section 130 of the BNSS cannot be

mechanical.

22.It is a settled principle of law that if the statute requires certain things

to be done in a particular manner, then those things must be done in

that manner and in no other manner. Further, each word contained in

a statute will have to be given a meaning. Therefore, the Executive

Magistrate, while exercising his powers under Sections 126, 127, 128

and 129 of the BNSS, ought to follow the process contemplated by

these sections and Section 130 of the BNSS. The Executive

Magistrate cannot adopt a procedure that is not recognised by the

BNSS. The Executive Magistrate deals with the personal liberty of a

citizen when the proceedings are initiated under Chapter IX of the

BNSS, and therefore, there ought to be strict compliance with the

statutory provisions.

23.For the aforesaid reasons, as and when the jurisdiction is exercised by

the Learned Magistrate under Sections 126, 127, 128 and 129 of the

BNSS, the Learned Magistrate shall strictly comply with the

requirements of Sections 126, 127, 128, 129 and 130. The Learned

Magistrate ought to pass an order in writing under Section 130 of the

BNSS setting forth the substance of the information received. The

notices issued under Section 126 cannot be construed as orders

passed under Section 130 of the BNSS.

Chandan Patekar & Others

Vs.

State of Goa & Others

__________________________________________________

WPCR Nos. 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56 of 2026

Page 22 of 24

April 7, 2026

24.As noted in the preceding paragraphs, the orders challenged in the

present Petitions are cyclostyled. First of all, there are notices issued

under Section 126 of the BNSS and not orders under Section 130 of

the BNSS. Admittedly, there are no separate orders passed by the

Learned Magistrates under Section 130 of the BNSS. The Learned

Magistrates are treating the notices issued under Section 126 of the

BNSS as the orders passed under Section 130 of the BNSS. A

pictorial representation of one of such orders is as follows:-

Chandan Patekar & Others

Vs.

State of Goa & Others

__________________________________________________

WPCR Nos. 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56 of 2026

Page 23 of 24

April 7, 2026

25.Therefore, I completely agree with the submissions made by the

Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners. In the present

Petitions, the notices issued by the Learned Magistrates are not in

conformity with the provisions of Sections 126 read with Section 130

of the BNSS. Therefore, the notices impugned in the Petitions are

liable to be quashed and set aside. Consequently, the proceedings

initiated pursuant to the notices are also liable to be quashed and set

aside.

26.In view thereof, Criminal Writ Petition No. 50 of 2026 in terms of

prayer clause (a), Criminal Writ Petition No. 51 of 2026 in terms of

prayer clauses (a) and (b), Criminal Writ Petition No. 52 of 2026 in

terms of prayer clause (a), Criminal Writ Petition No. 53 of 2026 in

terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c), Criminal Writ Petition No. 54

of 2026 in terms of prayer clauses (A) and (B) and Criminal Writ

Petition No. 56 of 2026 in terms of prayer clauses (A) and (B), are

allowed and the Rule is made absolute in the respective Writ

Petitions in terms thereof.

27.Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 50, 51, 52, 53, 54 and 56 of 2026 are

disposed of accordingly.

28.No order as to cost.

Chandan Patekar & Others

Vs.

State of Goa & Others

__________________________________________________

WPCR Nos. 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56 of 2026

Page 24 of 24

April 7, 2026

29. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/Personal

Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax

or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.

[ AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J. ]