Chapter VIII
Section 110 CrPC: Security for good behaviour from habitual offenders
New Law Update (2024)
Section 136 BNSS
TRIAL COURT
Punishment
Procedural / Administrative
Cognizable?
Bailable?
Compoundable?
Bare Act Text
When a Magistrate of the first class is informed that any person within the local limits of his jurisdiction—
(i) is by habit a robber, house-breaker, thief, or forger; or
(ii) is by habit a receiver of stolen property knowing the same to have been stolen; or
(iii) habitually protects or harbours thieves, or aids in the concealment or disposal of stolen property; or
(iv) 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 XII of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or under section 489A, section 489B, section 489C or section 489D of that Code; or
(v) habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of, offences, involving a breach of the peace; or
(vi) habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of—
(a) any offence under one or more of the following Acts, namely:
the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (23 of 1940);
the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (46 of 1973);
the Employees Provident Funds and Family Pension Fund Act, 1952 (19 of 1952);
the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954);
the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955);
the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 (22 of 1955);
the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962); or
the Foreigners Act, 1946; or
(b) 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
(vii) 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 bond, with sureties, for his good behaviour for such period, not exceeding three years, as the Magistrate thinks fit.
Important Sub-Sections Explained
Section 110(i) to (vi)
These subsections define various categories of ‘habitual offenders’ for whom security can be demanded. They cover individuals habitually involved in property crimes, receiving stolen goods, aiding thieves, or repeatedly committing serious offences like kidnapping, extortion, cheating, or crimes involving breach of peace or under specific socio-economic laws.
Section 110(vii)
This subsection targets individuals who are deemed so desperate and dangerous that their freedom without security poses a significant threat to the community’s safety. It allows for preventive action against those whose conduct is generally hazardous, even if not fitting strictly into other ‘habitual’ categories.
Landmark Judgements
Kaptan Singh v. State of Haryana (2021):
The Supreme Court emphasized that proceedings under Section 110 CrPC cannot be initiated based on a single instance of crime or vague general allegations. There must be concrete evidence to establish the ‘habitual’ nature of the offences, and the objective satisfaction of the Magistrate must be based on credible information, not mere apprehension.
Ram Narayan Singh v. State of Bihar (1972):
This Supreme Court judgment highlighted the preventive nature of such sections, stressing the importance of a proper judicial inquiry by the Magistrate. It underscored that the object is not to punish but to prevent future harm by requiring security, and due process must be meticulously followed.