Chapter VIII

Section 122 CrPC: Imprisonment in default of security

New Law Update (2024)

Section 132 BNSS

TRIAL COURT

Punishment​

Procedural – Warrant / Summons Process

Cognizable?

Bailable?

Compoundable?

Bare Act Text

(1) If any person ordered to give security under section 106 or section 117 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.
(2) If any person after having executed a bond with or without sureties for keeping the peace in pursuance of an order of a Magistrate under section 117, is proved, to the satisfaction of such Magistrate or his successor-in-office, to have committed breach of the 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 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.
(3) When such person has been ordered by a Magistrate to give security for a period exceeding one year, such Magistrate shall, if such person does not give such security as aforesaid, issue a warrant directing him to be detained in prison pending the orders of the Sessions Judge and the proceedings shall be laid, as soon as conveniently may be, before such Court.
(4) Such Court, after examining such proceedings and requiring from the Magistrate any further information or evidence which it thinks necessary, and after giving the concerned person a reasonable opportunity of being heard, may pass such order on the case as it thinks fit:
Provided that the period (if any) for which any person is imprisoned for failure to give security shall not exceed three years.
(5) If security has been required in the course of the same proceeding from two or more persons in respect of any one of whom the proceedings are referred to the Sessions Judge under sub-section (3), such reference shall also include the case of any other of such persons who has been ordered to give security, and the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4) shall, in that event, apply to the case of such other person also except that the period (if any) for which he may be imprisoned, shall not exceed the period for which he was ordered to give security.
(6) A Sessions Judge may in his discretion transfer any proceeding laid before him under sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) to an Additional Sessions Judge or Assistant Sessions Judge and upon such transfer, such Additional Sessions Judge or Assistant Sessions Judge may exercise the powers of a Sessions Judge under this section in respect of such proceedings.
(7) If the security is tendered to the officer in charge of the jail, he shall forthwith refer the matter to the Court or Magistrate who made the order, and shall await the orders of such Court or Magistrate.

Important Sub-Sections Explained

Section 122(1) – Default in Furnishing Security

This sub-section outlines the immediate consequence if a person fails to provide the ordered security under Section 106 or 117 CrPC, mandating their commitment or detention in prison until the security is furnished or the period expires.

Section 122(4) – Powers of Sessions Judge and Imprisonment Limit

This sub-section empowers the Sessions Judge to review cases where security exceeding one year is not furnished, allowing them to pass appropriate orders after due examination, with a crucial proviso limiting the maximum imprisonment for such default to three years.

Landmark Judgements

Chhabinath Dubey vs. The State of Bihar (1975):

This case clarified aspects of the reference to the Sessions Judge under the erstwhile Section 123(2) (now 122(3)) and the scope of inquiry by the higher court when a person is committed to prison for not furnishing security for a period exceeding one year.

Kesar Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1999):

The Rajasthan High Court discussed the powers of the Sessions Judge under Section 122(4) and the importance of giving the concerned person a reasonable opportunity of being heard before passing any order regarding the detention for default in furnishing security.

Draft Format / Application

Leave a Comment

Scroll to Top