1. The petitioners stood as sureties for the 4th respondent, who was the counter petitioner in M.C.No.72/2023 on the file of the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thiruvalla (‘Court’, in short), which was initiated against the 4th respondent under Section 126 read with Section 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023(‘BNSS’, in short).

2. Pursuant to an order passed under Section 129 read with Section 130 of the BNSS by the above Court, the 4th respondent and the petitioners executed bonds to the satisfaction of the above court, undertaking that the 4th respondent would keep peace for a period of three years from 19.04.2024. Alleging that the 4th respondent had violated the bond condition, by not keeping peace during the above time period, the above court forfeited the bond of the 4th respondent and issued notice to the petitioners. Subsequently, by Annexure A2 order, the petitioners were ordered to pay Rs.25,000/- each within one month. Alleging that the petitioners have failed to comply with Annexure A2 order, the above court has issued warrants of arrest against the petitioners. The warrants of arrest are ex facie illegal and unsustainable in law. Hence, the Crl.M.C.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that, the above Court ought to have issued a distress warrant against the petitioners and then proceeded against their properties as contemplated under Chapter XXXV of the BNSS. By no stretch of imagination could the above Court issue warrants of arrest against the petitioners. Therefore, the warrants of arrest are unsustainable in law.

5. It is not in dispute that the petitioners stood as sureties for the 4th respondent by executing bonds to the satisfaction of the above Court, undertaking that the 4th respondent would keep peace for a period of three years from 19.04.2024.

6. Admittedly, the 4th respondent has failed to keep peace for the stipulated time period, which led to the above Court passing Annexure A2 order, forfeiting the bonds and directing the petitioners to pay Rs.25,000/- each.

7. In the above context, it is apposite to refer to Section 141(1) of the BNSS which reads as follows:

                            “141. Imprisonment in default of security: -

                            (1) (a) If any person ordered to give security under section 125 or section 136 does not give such security on or before the date on which the period for which such security is to be given commences, he shall, except in the case next hereinafter mentioned, be committed to prison, or, if he is already in prison, be detained in prison until such period expires or until within such period he gives the security to the Court or Magistrate who made the order requiring it;

                            (b) if any person after having executed a bond or bail bond for keeping the peace in pursuance of an order of a Magistrate under section 136, is proved, to the satisfaction of such Magistrate or his successor-in-office, to have committed breach of the bond or bail bond, such Magistrate or successor-in-office may, after recording the grounds of such proof, order that the person be arrested and detained in prison until the expiry of the period of the bond or bail bond and such order shall be without prejudice to any other punishment or forfeiture to which the said person may be liable in accordance with law.”

8. A careful reading of Clause (b) of subsection (1) of Section 141 of the BNSS undoubtedly demonstrates that, it is only against the person who executes the bond or bail bond to keep the peace, and who violates the conditions in the bond or bail bond, can be proceeded against by ordering his arrest and detention.

9. Bond and bail bond have been defined in Sections 2(1)(d) and 2(1)(e) of the BNSS, which means that, when a counter-petitioner/accused is released on bond without sureties it is called as a bond and when the accused is released on a bond with sureties it is called as a bail bond.

10. In light of the above statutory provisions the above Court is only empowered to issue a warrant against the counter-petitioner/accused, but not his sureties, who are only obliged to ensure that the counter-petitioner keeps up with his undertaking in the bond, and that he is produced before the Court, if ordered. The only action that can be taken against the sureties is to forfeit the bond and recover the bond amount. The above Court would have to take recourse to Chapter XXXV of the BNSS, in case the petitioners fail to pay the bond amount. In light of the above discussions, I am inclined to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS and quash the warrants of arrest issued against the petitioners. Accordingly, I allow the Crl. M.C by quashing the warrants of arrest issued against the petitioners. Nonetheless, this order will not preclude the Sub Divisional Magistrate taking recourse to procedure laid down in Chapter XXXV of the BNSS to recover the bond amount from the petitioners.