Maintaining Public Order and Security: Preventive Measures in the CrPC

The Indian criminal justice system does not just respond to crime – it also tries to prevent it. A significant portion of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) is dedicated to exactly this: stopping a breach of peace before it happens. Sections 106 to 153 lay down a comprehensive framework of preventive measures, arming Executive Magistrates and police officers with the authority to intervene proactively when public order is threatened. These provisions are not punitive – they don’t punish someone for a crime already committed. Instead, they act as a legal safety net to ensure that individuals who are likely to disturb the peace are checked before they get the chance to do so.

The philosophy behind preventive law 🔗

Sir William Blackstone famously argued that preventive justice is preferable to punishing justice. Indian criminal law has absorbed this principle deeply. As noted by legal scholars, the provisions under Chapter VIII of the CrPC (Sections 106-124) are not about determining guilt – they are about enforcing a bond of good conduct from persons whose past behaviour or present circumstances suggest a real likelihood of harm to public peace. The mechanism used is straightforward: a person who poses a threat is required to execute a bond – with or without sureties – promising to keep the peace for a specified period. If the bond is breached, legal consequences follow.

This preventive approach stands in contrast to the usual trial process. There is no conviction involved. The entire procedure is, as courts have recognised, judicial in nature – not merely an administrative exercise – because it directly affects personal liberty.

Security for keeping the peace: sections 106-110 🔗

Sections 106 to 110 form the substantive core of preventive law under the CrPC, identifying five categories of persons from whom security can be demanded.

Section 106: security on conviction 🔗

Section 106 applies when a Court of Session or a First Class Magistrate convicts a person of a peace-related offence – such as assault, criminal force, criminal intimidation, or any offence under Chapter VIII of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that is likely to cause a breach of peace. At the time of sentencing, the court may additionally require the convicted person to execute a bond for keeping the peace for up to three years. If the conviction is later set aside on appeal, the bond automatically becomes void. Crucially, this order must be passed at the same time as the sentence – it cannot be imposed separately after the fact.

Section 107: preventive action in other cases 🔗

Section 107 empowers an Executive Magistrate to act when information is received that a person is likely to commit a breach of peace or disturb public tranquility – even without any conviction. The Magistrate can issue a show cause notice asking the person to explain why they should not be required to execute a bond for keeping the peace for up to one year. This section is commonly used around religious processions, festivals, elections, and situations where factional conflicts are likely to erupt into violence.

Section 108: security from those spreading seditious content 🔗

Section 108 targets individuals who intentionally disseminate or publish matter that is punishable under laws related to sedition, promoting enmity between groups, or insulting religious beliefs. The focus here is on the circulation of harmful content – whether in print or otherwise – that has a real likelihood of recurring. The Executive Magistrate may require such a person to show cause why a security bond should not be executed against them.

Section 109: security from suspected persons 🔗

Section 109 addresses a more specific scenario: a person who is concealing their presence with the apparent intention of committing a cognizable offence. The Magistrate can demand that such a person show cause why they should not be required to execute a bond for good behaviour for up to one year. This section upholds the preventive spirit of the law by targeting not just what someone has done, but what their clandestine conduct strongly suggests they are about to do.

Section 110: security from habitual offenders 🔗

Section 110 is perhaps the most far-reaching of the five. It allows an Executive Magistrate to demand security from habitual offenders – those with a history of robbery, house-breaking, theft, forgery, receiving stolen property, harbouring criminals, or habitually committing breaches of the peace. It also covers individuals described as being of a “desperate and dangerous character,” meaning those who show reckless disregard for the safety of others. The word “habit” is key here – courts have held that vague or general statements of bad reputation are not enough. There must be concrete evidence of repeated conduct.

The procedure under sections 111-124 🔗

While Sections 106-110 are the substantive provisions, Sections 111-124 lay out the procedure to be followed once an order is to be made. When a Magistrate decides that action is needed, they must issue a notice under Section 112, clearly stating the grounds for the proposed order. The person must be given an opportunity to be heard. An inquiry follows under Section 117, during which the Magistrate must apply a judicial mind – not just accept a police report at face value. If the allegations are not proved, the person is discharged. If proved, the Magistrate passes an order requiring the execution of a bond.

If a person refuses or fails to furnish the required security, Section 122 provides that they can be committed to prison until they do so or until the period of the bond expires. This is a significant consequence – and a reminder that while the process is preventive, it has real teeth. Importantly, persons arrested by police under Section 151 for initiating security proceedings are generally entitled to bail under Section 436 of the CrPC, except where Section 116(3) applies.

Maintenance of public tranquility: sections 129-153 🔗

The second major cluster of preventive provisions – Sections 129 to 153 – focuses on public order in a more immediate sense: dealing with unlawful assemblies, public nuisances, and emergency situations.

Dispersal of unlawful assemblies: sections 129-132 🔗

Under Section 129, any Executive Magistrate or police officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector may command an unlawful assembly – or any gathering of five or more persons likely to disturb the peace – to disperse. It is then the legal duty of the members to comply. If they do not, Section 130 allows the Magistrate or officer to use civil force to disperse them. When civil force is inadequate and public security is manifestly endangered, Section 130 further allows the Magistrate to request the assistance of the Armed Forces. In extreme cases, Section 131 authorises a commissioned officer of the Armed Forces to disperse a dangerous assembly even without a Magistrate’s order – but they must contact the Magistrate as soon as it becomes practicable and then act under their direction.

Section 132 provides a critical protection: no prosecution may be launched against any police officer, Magistrate, or armed forces personnel for actions taken in good faith during the dispersal of an unlawful assembly, without the sanction of the State or Central Government.

Section 133: conditional order for removal of nuisance 🔗

Section 133 empowers an Executive Magistrate to order the removal of a public nuisance – whether an illegal obstruction on a public road, a dangerous structure, an offensive trade or occupation, or any condition that is injurious to public health. The order is conditional: the party responsible is first given an opportunity to show cause. If the cause shown is insufficient, the order is made absolute, and the party must comply.

Section 144: orders in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger 🔗

Section 144 is probably the most well-known – and most debated – provision in this entire cluster. It empowers a District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, or any specially empowered Executive Magistrate to issue an order, even ex parte (without hearing the other side), in situations of urgent nuisance or apprehended danger. The order can direct a person or the general public in a specified area to refrain from certain acts or to take certain actions. It can restrict public gatherings, prohibit the carrying of weapons, or impose a curfew-like restriction on movement.

An order under Section 144 ordinarily remains in force for two months, though the State Government can extend it up to six months in cases of imminent danger to human life or property. Violation of such an order is punishable under the IPC. The section has been widely invoked during communal tensions, elections, and – most recently – during the COVID-19 pandemic to restrict public gatherings. It also empowers Magistrates to block internet services when required to prevent the spread of information that could incite disorder.

In the landmark case of Madhu Limaye v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Monghyr (1970), a Special Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 144 and the entirety of Chapter VIII of the CrPC. Chief Justice Hidayatullah held that the section’s power is extraordinary and must be used only in urgent situations with sufficient grounds. The Court emphasised that the possibility of misuse is not a ground for striking down the law – but that misuse can always be corrected by judicial review. Safeguards include the requirement that the order be in writing, state material facts, and be open to challenge before the Magistrate or superior courts.

Sections 145-148: disputes concerning land and local investigations 🔗

Sections 145 to 148 deal with disputes concerning land, water, or boundaries where there is apprehension of a breach of peace. If an Executive Magistrate is satisfied that such a dispute exists, they can pass a preliminary order calling upon the parties to submit statements of their claims. Section 146 allows the Magistrate to attach the subject of dispute and appoint a receiver in cases of emergency. Section 148 allows for local investigation by a commission if needed to resolve the factual disputes.

Preventive action by the police: sections 149-153 🔗

The final group of provisions under this chapter specifically addresses the powers of police officers to take proactive steps before a crime is committed.

Section 149 imposes a duty on every police officer to prevent, as far as possible, the commission of any cognizable offence. This is a general preventive obligation – police cannot simply wait for a crime to occur when they have advance knowledge of it.

Section 150 requires police officers who receive information about a design to commit a cognizable offence to communicate that information promptly to the officer-in-charge of the police station, or to the Magistrate, so that preventive action can be initiated.

Section 151 is the most powerful of the three: it empowers a police officer to arrest a person without a warrant if they believe the arrest is necessary to prevent the commission of a cognizable offence, and the offence cannot be prevented by any other means. However, the detained person cannot be held for more than 24 hours without the authority of a Magistrate. In Ahmed Noormohmed Bhatti v. State of Gujarat (2005), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 151 while emphasising that preventive arrest must be based on reasonable grounds – not used as a tool for harassment. The Court also integrated the procedural safeguards from D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) to govern how arrests under this section must be conducted.

Sections 152 and 153 empower police officers to prevent injury to public property. Section 152 allows an officer to prevent obstruction or damage to public roads, rivers, and channels. Section 153 allows for inspection of weights and measures – a provision that may seem out of place but reflects the CrPC’s broader understanding that public order also depends on fair commercial practices.

The balance between public safety and individual rights 🔗

The most recurring criticism of these provisions – particularly Sections 144 and 151 – is the risk of misuse. Critics argue that Section 144 has historically been invoked not just in genuine emergencies but also to suppress legitimate protests and dissent. Section 151 has similarly been criticised for giving police officers wide discretion that can lead to arbitrary arrests, particularly of marginalised communities.

At the same time, the legal framework does contain important checks. The requirement that orders under Section 144 be in writing, with material facts stated, means they are open to challenge. Courts have consistently held that Section 144 cannot be used against peaceful assembly that is constitutionally protected under Article 19(1)(b). Arrests under Section 151 must comply with the D.K. Basu guidelines, which impose strict procedural requirements on police. High Courts retain supervisory jurisdiction over all these proceedings.

It is also worth noting that with the enactment of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, these provisions have been largely retained but with some procedural updates. Section 144 of the CrPC, for instance, has been replaced by Section 163 of the BNSS, which retains the same core purpose while expanding its scope slightly. The fundamental philosophy – preventive justice over punitive justice – remains intact.

The provisions under Sections 106-153 of the CrPC represent the law’s attempt to act as a shield before a crisis escalates into harm. From requiring bonds of good conduct from habitual offenders, to dispersing unlawful assemblies, to preventing anticipated crimes through proactive arrest, these measures collectively form a system that places as much importance on maintaining peace as on punishing its breach. The legitimacy of these powers ultimately rests on how they are exercised – with proportionality, proper reasoning, and judicial oversight.

What do you think? Given that provisions like Section 144 can be used to restrict even peaceful gatherings, do you think the current legal safeguards are sufficient to prevent their misuse by authorities? And in a system where preventive detention under Section 151 can deprive someone of their liberty without a trial, how should courts strike the right balance between public safety and individual rights?

References

1. https://blog.ipleaders.in/security-for-keeping-peace-and-behaviour-under-109-110-111-of-crpc/
2. https://www.latestlaws.com/bare-acts/central-acts-rules/crpc-section-106-security-for-keeping-the-peace-on-conviction
3. https://lawtimesjournal.in/security-for-keeping-the-peace-and-for-good-behaviour/
4. https://gyansanchay.csjmu.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/security-for-keeping-peace-and-good-behaviour.pdf
5. https://devgan.in/crpc/chapter_10.php
6. https://lawgratis.com/blog-detail/crpc-section-144
7. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/496236/
8. https://www.casemine.com/commentary/in/section-151-of-crpc-upheld-as-constitutional-in-ahmed-noormohmed-bhatti-v.-state-of-gujarat/view
9. https://thelawgist.org/security-for-keeping-the-peace-and-for-good-behaviour/