Section 135 of BNSS : Section 135: Inquiry as to truth of information.

Explanation using Example

Example 1:

Rajesh, a local shopkeeper, has been accused of inciting a group of people to create a public disturbance in his neighborhood. The police, acting on this information, issue a summons for Rajesh to appear before the Magistrate under Section 132 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023.

When Rajesh appears in court, the Magistrate reads out the order under Section 130 and explains the allegations to him. The Magistrate then proceeds to inquire into the truth of the information by examining witnesses and collecting evidence, as per the procedure for summons-cases.

During the inquiry, the Magistrate finds that there is a risk of Rajesh causing further disturbances. To prevent any breach of peace, the Magistrate directs Rajesh to execute a bond for maintaining good behavior until the inquiry is concluded. Rajesh is required to provide sureties and a monetary bond. If Rajesh fails to execute the bond, he will be detained in custody until the inquiry is completed.

Example 2:

Sunita, a known habitual offender in her locality, is brought before the Magistrate after being accused of planning a theft. The police have issued a warrant under Section 132, and Sunita is presented in court.

The Magistrate, under Section 130, begins an inquiry into the truth of the information against Sunita. Witnesses testify that Sunita has a reputation for being involved in criminal activities. The Magistrate records this evidence and considers it necessary to take immediate measures to prevent any potential crime.

The Magistrate directs Sunita to execute a bail bond for keeping the peace and maintaining good behavior until the inquiry is concluded. Sunita is required to provide sureties, and the conditions of the bond are set in accordance with the order under Section 130. If Sunita fails to execute the bond, she will be detained in custody until the inquiry is completed.

The inquiry is conducted efficiently and is completed within six months. If it had not been completed within this period, the proceedings would have been terminated unless the Magistrate recorded special reasons for continuing the inquiry. If Sunita had been detained during the inquiry, the proceedings against her would have been terminated after six months of detention unless concluded earlier.