Delhi HC junks Neha Bora plea against peace bond notice

The Delhi high court has denied AISA president Neha Bora's request to challenge a peace bond notice

NEW DELHI: There was "sufficient material" before the special executive magistrate to proceed against AISA president Neha Bora over apprehensions of breach of peace and disturbance of public tranquillity, Delhi high court said Friday. It dismissed her plea challenging a notice asking her to execute a peace bond, a day before she has to appear before the official.The notice was issued under BNSS Section 126, which empowers the SEM to enforce the signing of a bond if there is credible information that a person is likely to breach peace, disturb public tranquillity, or commit a wrongful act that may cause disturbance.‘Orders breached under BNSS Section 163 despite warning’Justice Subramonium Prasad said the “area where the petitioner was detained and where she was urging people to join her protest is a commercial area, receiving very high footfall from office-goers, and there are important roads connecting the heart of the city to various other areas.

There are a large number of hotels, banks, offices, vendors and, therefore, it cannot be said that there was no material at all before the SEM before proceeding against the petitioner.

”HC said the SEM’s notice “further gets fortified when prohibitory orders under Section 163 of BNSS had been passed covering the said area, i.e., Mandi House”.Noting that Bora has been named in six FIRs by Delhi Police, the court said “even one incident is sufficient” to initiate proceedings under Chapter IX of BNSS (provisions related to security for keeping the peace and for good behaviour) if the “circumstances so suggest that there is an apprehension that such a person will indulge in further incidents of the same nature which can breach peace and disturb public tranquillity”.

HC said in the case before it, “it has been recorded that the petitioner has breached the orders under Section 163 of BNSS despite being warned” while finding merit in the SEM’s show-cause notice.

Challenging the police notice, Bora’s lawyer had argu-ed that there was no application of mind or independent opinion at the time of issuance of the notice.