1 2026:CGHC:195 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3756 of 2025 1 - Sayyed Raahim Adnan Ali S/o Sayyed Azhar Ali Aged About 20 Years R/o Ward No. 10, Rajendra Nagar, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Rakhi, Police Station Rakhi, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Sub Divisional Magistrate Abhanpur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri Surfaraj Khan, Advocate. For State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Govt. Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 02.01. 202 6 1. The present Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed seeking quashment of entire criminal proceedings drawn in case No.243 of 2025 under Sections 170,126 and 135(3) of BNSS, 2023 by the Sub Divisional Magistrate (Abhanpur), District Raipur. 2. The subject matter in brief is that, on 10.10.2025 at about 13:20 hours the petitioner was arrested by the police of Police Station, Rakhi, District Raipur at the time when he was creating nuisance near IIIT College Gate, Sector-24, Nawa Raipur by hurling abuses that he has been falsely implicated in the offence and get him suspended from the College and despite convincing by the Guards and bypassers he could INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.01.09 17:25:03 +0530 2 not convince. When his nuisance became aggravated, the police were called and petitioner was arrested under the preventive action under Section 170 of BNSS, 2023 and Istgasha under Section 126 and 135(3) BNSS was prepared. On the same day the petitioner was produced before the SDM, Abhanpur, District Raipur and preliminary order was passed asking him to furnish bail bond for keeping peace. When the petitioner failed to produce bail bond, he was sent to jail. He furnished his bail bond on 13.10.2025 and then he was released from jail. Thereafter, on 10.11.2025 the proceeding of the case was closed as the petitioner already submitted his bond for keeping peace and no other complaint was received against him. The petitioner is challenging the entire proceeding of case No.243 of 2025. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was arrested under the preventive action of Section 170 of BNSS and he could not be detained more than 24 hours by the police, yet he was sent on jail and he could be released only on 13.10.2025. There is no provision to pass interim order under Section 170 of BNSS, 2023, yet an interim order under Section 170 of BNSS was passed and asked the petitioner to submit bail bond which is against the requirement of law. He would also submit that the preliminary order dated 10.10.2025 passed by the SDM is illegal on the ground that procedure prescribed under Section 130 and 135 of BNSS are not followed and the petitioner was kept in jail without any enquiry and directly the order has been passed on 10.10.2025. He was illegally kept behind the bar for about 3 days. In the proceeding under Section 170 of BNSS, only bond of the concerned person is required and not the surety, yet the petitioner was 3 asked to furnish surety. The entire action of the police authority amounts to misuse of powers conferred upon them. Without there being any preliminary enquiry or show cause notice, no proceeding can be drawn against him and the entire proceeding would affect his career as the petitioner is a student of B.Tech., Third Year at IIIT, Raipur. Therefore, the entire proceeding may be quashed and the respondent authorities may be directed to act and proceed in accordance with law. In support of his contention, he would rely upon judgment of MP High Court in case of Babulal Vs. State of M.P., 1991 MPLJ 26. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and would submit that on 10.10.2025 the petitioner was found creating nuisance near College Gate and then police arrested him on the apprehension of breach of peace and preventive action was taken against him under Sections 170, 126 and 135(3) of BNSS, 2023 and produced him before the SDM, Abhanpur, from where he was sent in judicial custody and the proceeding was drawn under Section 126 and 135(3) of BNSS. She would further submit that Section 170 of BNSS gives power to police to arrest the person without orders from Magistrate or without a warrant who is designing the commission of offence and he was produced before the concerned Magistrate. The concerned Magistrate was required under the provisions of Section 126 and 135(3) of BNSS to furnish bail bond and surety and in failure thereof, the petitioner was sent to jail, which cannot be said to be an arbitrary exercise of powers, but under the strict compliance of provisions of Sections 126, 135(3) 4 and 170 of BNSS, 2023. Therefore, there is no illegally or infirmity in the proceeding and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 6. From document annexed with the petition it transpires that on 10.10.2025 the petitioner was arrested by the police near IIIT College Gate at Nawa Raipur while he was creating nuisance and hurling abuses. On the apprehension of breach of peace he was arrested. The police authorities while invoking the powers under Section 170 of BNSS, arrested the petitioner and produced him within 24 hours before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate. True it is that the police cannot detain him for more than 24 hours. The police produced the petitioner before the jurisdictional Magistrate within 24 hours. When the petitioner was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate, the jurisdictional Magistrate considers it under the provisions of Section 126 and 135(3) BNSS i.e. further detention is required, and asked him to furnish bail bond and surety by passing a preliminary order on 10.10.2025. 7. It is necessary here to notice Section 170 of BNSS, 2023, which reads as under: “170. Arrest to prevent commission of cognizable offences- (1) A police officer knowing of a design to commit any cognizable offence may arrest, without orders from a Magistrate and without a warrant, the person so designing, if it appears to such officer that the commission of the offence cannot be otherwise prevented. (2) No person arrested under sub-section (1) shall be detained in custody for a period exceeding twenty-four hours from the time of his arrest unless his further detention is required or authorised under any other provisions of this Sanhita or of any other law for the time being in force.” 8. Section 126 of BNSS, 2023 provides that when an Executive Magistrate receives information that any person is likely to commit a 5 breach of peace or disturb the public tranquillity, he may, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond or bail bond for keeping the peace of such period, not exceeding one year, and in pursuance thereof, he asked the petitioner to furnish bail bond for a sum of Rs.20000/- with one surety of likesum for keeping the peace for six months. When the petitioner fails to furnish bail bond and surety, he was sent to jail on 10.10.2025. It is also necessary here to take note of Sections 126 and 135(3) of BNSS, 2023 which reads as under: “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 tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity and is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he may, in the manner hereinafter 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. (2)Proceedings under this section may be taken before any Executive Magistrate when either the place where the breach of the peace or disturbance is apprehended is within his local jurisdiction or there is within such jurisdiction a person who is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act as aforesaid beyond such jurisdiction. 135. Inquiry as to truth of information- xxx xxx xxx (3) After the commencement, and before the completion, of the inquiry under sub-section (1), the Magistrate, if he considers that immediate measures are necessary for the prevention of a breach of the peace or disturbance of the public tranquillity or the commission of any offence or for the public safety, may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct the person in respect of whom the order under section 130 has been made to execute a bond or bail bond, for keeping the peace or maintaining good behaviour until the conclusion of the inquiry, and may detain him in custody until such bond or bail bond is executed or, in default of execution, until the inquiry is concluded: Provided that- (a) no person against whom proceedings are not being taken under section 127, section 128, or section 129 shall be directed to execute a bond or bail bond for maintaining good behaviour; (b) the conditions of such bond, whether as to the amount thereof or as to the provision of sureties or the number thereof or the pecuniary 6 extent of their liability, shall not be more onerous than those specified in the order under section 130.” 9. In the matter of Ahmed Noormohmed Bhatti Vs. State of Gujarat & Others, 2005(3)SCC 647, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered that the provisions of Section 151 CrPC (Section 170 of BNSS, 2023) is not unconstitutional and the powers conferred on the police authorities cannot be held to be arbitrary or unreasonable. Although the period of detention under Section 151 CrPC cannot be exceeded 24 hours, however, if before 24 hours of detention, the detainee is found to be required to be detained under any other provisions of the Code, his detention would continue under that provisions or law instead of Section 151 CrPC. In paragraph 4, 5, 10 and 11 of said judgment, it was observed as under: “4. Section 151 appears under Chapter XI of the Code of Criminal Procedure which relates to preventive action of the police. Sub-section (1) thereof empowers a police officer to arrest, without orders from a Magistrate and without a warrant, a person designing to commit any cognizable offence. Section further requires that such an arrest should be made only if it appears to such police officer that the commission of the offence cannot be otherwise prevented. Sub-section (2) of Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure places a limitation on the period of detention by providing that no person arrested under sub- section (1) shall be detained in custody for a period exceeding 24 hours from the time of his arrest, unless his further detention is required or authorized under any other provisions of this Code or any other law for the time being in force. 5. A mere perusal of Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure makes it clear that the conditions under which a police officer may arrest a person without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant, have been laid down in Section 151. He can do so only if he has come to know of a design of the person concerned to commit any cognizable offence. A further condition for the exercise of such power, which must also be fulfilled, is that the arrest should be made only if it appears to the police officer concerned that the commission of the offence cannot be otherwise prevented. The Section, therefore, expressly lays down the requirements for the exercise of the power to arrest without an order from a Magistrate and without warrant. If these conditions are not fulfilled and, a person is arrested under Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the arresting authority may be exposed to proceedings under the law. Sub-section (2) lays down the 7 rule that normally a person so arrested shall be detained in custody not for a period exceeding 24 hours. It, therefore, follows that in the absence of anything else, on expiry of 24 hours, he must be released. The release, however, is not insisted upon only when his further detention is required or authorized under any other provision of the Code or of any other law for the time being in force. It, therefore, follows that if before the expiry of 24 hours of detention it is found that the person concerned is required to be detained under any other provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, or of any other law for the time being in force, he may not be released and his detention may continue under such law or such provision of the Code. The detention thereafter is not under Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but under the relevant provision of the Code or any other law for the time being in force as the case may be. Section 151, therefore, only provides for arrest of a person to prevent the commission of a cognizable offence by him. The provision by no stretch of imagination can be said to be either arbitrary or unreasonable or infringing upon the fundamental rights of a citizen under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. 10. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that such requirements must be laid down in the case of an arrest under Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Counsel for the respondents conceded that the requirements laid down in Joginder Kumar (supra) and D.K. Basu (supra) apply also to an arrest made under Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure . As we have noticed earlier, Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure itself makes provision for the circumstances in which an arrest can be made under that Section and also places a limitation on the period for which a person so arrested may be detained. The guidelines are inbuilt in the provision itself. Those statutory guidelines read with the requirements laid down by this Court in Joginder Kumar (supra) and D.K. Basu (supra) provide an assurance that the power shall not be abused and in case of abuse, the authority concerned shall be adequately punished. A provision cannot be held to be unreasonable or arbitrary and, therefore, unconstitutional, merely because the authority vested with the power may abuse his authority. Since several cases of abuse of authority in matters of arrest and detention have come to the notice of this Court, this Court has laid down the requirements which have to be followed in all cases of arrest and detention. 11. We, therefore, find no substance in the contention that Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is unconstitutional and ultra vires the constitutional provisions.” 10. In the present case on 10.10.2025 the petitioner was arrested and on the same day i.e. within 24 hours he was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate and the jurisdictional Magistrate, in turn, passed a preliminary order on 10.10.2025 asking petitioner to furnish bail bond of Rs.20000/- with one surety of the likesum to keep the 8 peace for six months and the Magistrate proceeded under Section 126 and 135(3) of BNSS, 2023. Therefore, the Magistrate considers detention of petitioner required under the provisions of Section 126 and 135(3) BNSS, 2023 and proceeded accordingly. 11. From perusal of preliminary order dated 10.10.2025, the compliance of Section 135(3) BNSS appears that at the time of commencement of the enquiry, the SDM Abhanpur asked the petitioner to furnish bail bond within one surety of the likesum of Rs.20000/- which also found to be in accordance with the provisions under Chapter-IX of The BNSS, 2023. 12. The counsel for the petitioner stressed on the point that the preliminary order is passed under Section 170 of BNSS, 2023 which has been mentioned in the order itself and there was no requirement to pass preliminary order under Section 170 of BNSS, therefore, there is an illegality committed by the authorities, however, this court is of the opinion that the petitioner was arrested under Section 170 of BNSS and he was produced before the SDM, Abhanpur, who under the requirement of Section 126 and 135(3) BNSS, initiated enquiry under Sub-section (1) of Section 130 and asked him to furnish bail bond and surety. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is an order passed under Section 170 of BNSS specifically. Even if it is mentioned that preliminary order is passed under Section 170 of BNSS, it does not affect the order which was passed on 10.10.2025 in the case asking the petitioner to furnish bail bond and surety. 13. In Ahmed Noormohmed Bhatti (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also considered the scope of interference for quashing criminal 9 proceedings under Section 482 CrPC (528 of BNSS, 2023) and held in paragraph 12 as under: “12. The next question is whether any interference by this Court is called for in the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner. As we have noticed earlier, these proceedings have been initiated by private persons, namely, Respondents 5 to 7. So far as the police authorities are concerned, namely, Respondents 2 to 4, they are performing the statutory duties enjoined upon them. Those proceedings are not motivated by any personal animosity of the police officials concerned. The proceedings have been initiated on complaints made by private persons under the law and the proceedings are pending before the courts which have jurisdiction to deal with them. The High Court has examined the matter and has come to the conclusion that those proceedings do not deserve to be quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution or under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We entirely agree with the High Court.” 14. In the present case also when the petitioner was creating nuisance in front of College Gate at Nawa Raipur, he was being arrested by the police authorities. The police authorities were having no animosity with the petitioner to arrest him in any false case. 15. The facts and consideration in case of Babulal (Supra) are distinguishable to the facts and consideration in the present case, and therefore, no benefit could be extended to the petitioner from the case cited. 16. In view of the aforesaid consideration, this court does not find any substance in the petition for quashing criminal proceeding on the grounds claimed in the petition. Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder