Security for good behaviour from suspected persons :
Section – 109. When an Executive Magistrate receives information that there is within his local jurisdiction a person taking precautions to conceal his presence and that there is reason to believe that he is doing so with a view to committing a cognizable offence, the Magistrate may, in the manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for his good behaviour for such period, not exceeding one year, as the Magistrate thinks fit.
COMMENTS
JOINT COMMITTEE OF PARLIAMENT
It will be instructive to quote in full the observations of the Joint Committee of Parliament which considered the provisions:
“The clause which reproduces section 109 of the old Code has long been the subject of some controversy. There is a sizeable section of opinion which holds the view that the provision is being widely abused and innocent persons are being sent to jail as a result of the proceedings under this section, either for the purpose of showing better statistics of prevention of crime or for other more objectionable purposes. On the other hand, there is also a sizeable section of opinion which would consider the retention of this provision as indispensable for the maintenance of law and order. It is urged that but for this provision the incidence of crime would be very high and professional thieves and anti-social elements would have a field day. The object of this provision is to check and control the persons who are likely to commit offences and it cannot be denied that this cannot be done unless they are prevented from doing so by resorting to provisions of this kind. The Committee was informed that practically all the State Governments are opposed to the deletion of this provision mainly on this ground.
The Committee has given a very careful consideration to the conflicting viewpoints indicated above, and has come to the conclusion that the provision relating to persons who have no ostensible means of subsistence or who cannot give a satisfactory account of themselves, should be deleted.
Paragraph (a) which deals with persons taking precaution to conceal their presence with a view to committing offences, however, stands on a different footing because, firstly, it is not so widely abused and secondly, it comes in only when there is suspicion of the commission of an offence. The Committee considers that this part of the clause should be retained. But even here it should be restricted to cases where the suspected offence is a cognizable offence. The Committee also considers that the bond to be executed could be without surety if the Magistrate thinks it fit.
In coming to the above conclusion the Committee has taken due note of the fact that the power under the clause has been conferred on the Judicial Magistrates, who may be expected to act impartially, with due regard not only to the rights of the persons proceeded against but also to the reasonable needs of prevention of crime.”