Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Section 129
Security for good behaviour from habitual offenders
When an Executive Magistrate receives information that there is within his local jurisdiction a person who—
(a) is by habit a robber, house-breaker, thief, or forger; or
(b) is by habit a receiver of stolen property knowing the same to have been stolen; or
(c) habitually protects or harbours thieves, or aids in the concealment or disposal of stolen property; or
(d) habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of, the offence of kidnapping, abduction, extortion, cheating or mischief, or any offence punishable under Chapter X of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, or under section 178, section 179, section 180 or section 181 of that Sanhita; or
(e) habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of, offences, involving a breach of the peace; or
(f) habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of—
(i) any offence under one or more of the following Acts, namely:—
(a) the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (23 of 1940.);
(b) the Foreigners Act, 1946 (31 of 1946);
(c) the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952);
(d) the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955);
(e) the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (22 of 1955);
(f) the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962);
(g) the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (34 of 2006); or
(ii) any offence punishable under any other law providing for the prevention of hoarding or profiteering or of adulteration of food or drugs or of corruption; or
(g) is so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large without security hazardous to the community,
such Magistrate may, in the manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bail bond, for his good behaviour for such period, not exceeding three years, as the Magistrate thinks fit.
Why this exists
This provision continues a long-standing preventive-justice tradition from the colonial-era Code of Criminal Procedure (originally Section 110 CrPC). It allows magistrates to act before a habitual offender commits another crime, by requiring a bond for good behaviour, rather than waiting for a fresh offence to occur. Its purpose is community protection through deterrence and monitoring, not punishment for a specific proven crime.
How courts read it
Courts under the old Section 110 CrPC (now Section 129 BNSS) have repeatedly stressed that this is a preventive, not punitive, measure and must be used cautiously since it can restrict liberty based on general reputation ('habitual' conduct) rather than a specific conviction. Judges have held that mere suspicion or a single incident is not enough — there must be credible material showing a pattern of habitual conduct, and due process (a fair opportunity to show cause) must be followed before any bond is demanded.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: This section is used to convict and punish someone for a crime.
Fact: It's a preventive measure, not a conviction — it asks for a good-behaviour bond, not punishment for a specific proven offence. - Myth: A single incident is enough to invoke this section.
Fact: Courts require a pattern of 'habitual' conduct, not just one isolated act, before this provision can be used. - Myth: The person has no chance to defend themselves.
Fact: The law explicitly requires the Magistrate to let the person 'show cause' — that is, respond and explain — before any bond is imposed.