Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Section 138
Commencement of period for which security is required
(1) If any person, in respect of whom an order requiring security is made under section 125 or section 136, is at the time such order is made, sentenced to, or undergoing a sentence of, imprisonment, the period for which such security is required shall commence on the expiration of such sentence.
(2) In other cases such period shall commence on the date of such order unless the Magistrate, for sufficient reason, fixes a later date.
Why this exists
Security orders (like bonds to keep the peace or be of good behavior) are meant to prevent future harm. If someone is already locked up serving a sentence, making the security period run at the same time would be pointless — they can't threaten anyone while in jail, and the point of the security is to cover the time after release, when the risk actually arises. This provision (carried forward from the old Code of Criminal Procedure, section 127) ensures the protective purpose of a security bond is not wasted by overlapping with a jail term.
How courts read it
Courts have generally treated this as a straightforward, mechanical provision ensuring the security period has practical effect rather than running uselessly during imprisonment. There isn't a body of major landmark judgments distinctly interpreting this specific timing rule, as it is largely procedural and applied factually case by case.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: The security period always starts on the day the Magistrate passes the order.
Fact: That is only true if the person is not currently serving a jail sentence. If they are already in prison, the security period is postponed until after their release. - Myth: A Magistrate can never delay the start date under sub-section (2).
Fact: The Magistrate can fix a later start date than the order date, but only for sufficient reason.