Security for good behaviour from habitual offenders
Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with security for good behaviour from habitual offenders. When [an Executive Magistrate.] receives information that there is within his local jurisdiction a person who- (a) is by habit a robber, house-breaker, thief, or forger, or, (b) is by habit a receiver of stolen property knowing the same to have been stolen, or (c) habitually protects or harbours thi The Act came into force on 01 Apr 1974. Repealed by section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
When [an Executive Magistrate.] receives information that there is within his local jurisdiction a person who-
(a) is by habit a robber, house-breaker, thief, or forger, or,
(b) is by habit a receiver of stolen property knowing the same to have been stolen, or
(c) habitually protects or harbours thieves, or aids in the concealment or disposal of stolen property, or
(d) 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
(e) habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of, offences, involving a breach of the peace, or
1 Subs. by Act 63 of 1980, S. 2 (w.e.f. 23.9.1980).
(f) habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of-
(i) any offence under one or more of the following. Acts, namely : -
(a) the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (23 of 1940);
[(b) the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973] (46 of 1973);
(c) the Employees' Provident Funds [and Family Pension Fund] Act, 1952; -- of 1952.
(d) the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954);
(e) the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955);
(f) the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 (22 of 1955);
(g) the Customs Act, 1962 or (52 of 1962);
(ii) 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
(g) 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.
Section 110, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
Now in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
BNSS 129 Security for good behaviour from habitual offenders Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Hamid Mohd vs Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir Through Financial Commissioner (Additional Chief Secretary) Home Department Civil Secretariat, Jammu
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Preventive detention under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 cannot be justified solely on the basis of repeated FIRs for offences that do not relate to maintenance of public order. The distinction between 'Public Order' (disturbance of general tranquility of the community) and 'Law and Order' (acts directed against individuals) is crucial. Offences under Section 188 IPC and violations of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, even if repeated, do not constitute grounds for preventive detention aimed at maintaining public order. Such matters must be dealt with through ordinary criminal procedure under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or through preventive measures like Section 110 CrPC for habitual offenders. Preventive detention cannot be used as a shortcut to bypass ordinary criminal procedure.
On this section: The court noted that this section provides a preventive measure for habitual offenders, which is the appropriate legal mechanism for dealing with persons with a history of criminal activities, rather than preventive detention under the Public Safety Act
-
Inala Manoj vs The State of Telangana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Mere arraignment in a criminal offence cannot be taken as conviction or breach of bond for good behaviour furnished under Section 110 Cr.P.C. An Executive Magistrate cannot order penalty for breach of bond without establishing that the accused has been convicted of the underlying offence. Detention based on alleged breach of bond without conviction is illegal and the detenu must be released immediately.
On this section: Bond for good behaviour - the court examined whether mere arraignment in an offence constitutes breach of bond furnished under this section
-
Pedagopi Gurrayya vs State of Andhra Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A Mandal Executive Magistrate cannot enforce a bond executed under Section 110 CrPC (bond for good behavior) using procedures meant for Section 117 CrPC (bond for keeping the peace), particularly the arrest provisions under Section 122(b) CrPC. The procedural distinction between these two types of bonds must be strictly observed, and failure to follow the correct procedure renders the forfeiture proceedings invalid and subject to quashing by the High Court under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC.
On this section: Bond for good behavior - the section under which the petitioner allegedly executed the bond; the court examined whether this section was correctly applied by the Magistrate
-
Pramod Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A notice issued under Section 111/112 CrPC on a printed proforma without setting forth the substance of information received by the Magistrate, the magistrate's opinion on likelihood of breach of peace, and specific details of allegations against the person is defective, invalid, and liable to be quashed. The mandatory elements prescribed by Section 111 CrPC must be strictly complied with, and the object of setting forth the substance of information is to inform the person what allegations they have to answer. Proceedings based on such defective notice cannot be sustained.
On this section: Provides the basis for Magistrate to require a person to show cause why they should not be ordered to execute a bond for good behaviour when they habitually commit or attempt to commit offences involving breach of peace
-
Bandi Sridevi vs The State of Telangana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Mere arraignment in a criminal offence cannot be taken to be a conviction whereby it could be said that the accused had committed a breach of the bond furnished by him for maintaining good behaviour. Therefore, the exercise of power under Section 122(b) Criminal Procedure Code to impose penalty based on mere implication in an offence, without conviction, is unsustainable and illegal.
On this section: Provision relating to bond for good behaviour; the court examined whether breach of such bond can be established merely by arraignment in an offence
-
Yanamadala Anil Chand vs The State of Andhra Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a person has been acquitted in most criminal cases, has not been involved in any criminal activity for several years, and has no pending cases, the continuation of a rowdy sheet without any current justification may be deemed arbitrary. In such circumstances, the appropriate remedy is to permit the person to make a representation before the competent police authority (Sub-Divisional Police Officer) for closure of the rowdy sheet, rather than granting absolute mandamus, thereby balancing law enforcement interests with individual rehabilitation rights.
On this section: Applied in context of binding over petitioner for good behavior in Cr.No.93/2003
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… offence punishable under Chapter XVI of the Indian Penal Code, whose previous conviction or convictions taken in conjunction with the facts of the present case, show that he habitually commits offences against the person; (iii) Any person committed to or detained in prison under section 122 read with section 109 or section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; (iv) Any person convicted of any of the offences specified in i) above when it appears from the facts of the case, even though no previous conviction has been proved, that he is by habit a member of a gang of dacoits, or of thieves or a dealer in stolen property; (v) Any …
-
… The next contention of the learned counsel is that in view of the initiation of proceedings under Section 107/110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there was no need to initiate proceedings under the KAAP Act. The order reveals that the detaining authority was aware of the pendency of the proceedings under Section 110 of the Cr.P.C. As held in Anita Antony (supra), the relative scope of the two proceedings is different and independent. Proceedings under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C, is in the nature of security for keeping peace and public tranquility, and the free movement of such a person is not curtailed at all. 107 …
-
… | 294, 323, 506, 34 IPC | | 6 | Istgasa<br>No.06/17 | 110 Cr.P.C. | Out of these 6 cases, except the case at Serial No.5 which is of the year 2016, the remaining cases are of the years 2006, 2009 and 2010. The 6th case relates to prohibitory proceedings under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that all the cases are of old and stale which do not form sufficient material to pass an order of externment under 'the Adhiniyam'. He also contended that the District Magistrate has failed to record its satisfaction on the basis of …
Questions about Section 110
What have the courts held on Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Hamid Mohd vs Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir Through Financial Commissioner (Additional Chief Secretary) Home Department Civil Secretariat, Jammu (06 Aug 2024) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: The court noted that this section provides a preventive measure for habitual offenders, which is the appropriate legal mechanism for dealing with persons with a history of criminal activities, rather than preventive detention under the Public Safety Act. Another 5 judgments on this section are set out below. They run from 2012 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: CRPC 110, section 110 CRPC, section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 6 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Hamid Mohd vs Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir Through Financial Commissioner (Additional Chief Secretary) Home Department Civil Secretariat, Jammu (06 Aug 2024).
What should I read with Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has it changed?
6 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNSS 129 (Security for good behaviour from habitual offenders), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure come into force?
Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cited as CRPC 110, came into force on 01 Apr 1974, having been enacted on 25 Jan 1974. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 320. Compounding of offences1554 words
- 167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours1005 words
- 220. Trial for more than one offence962 words
- 360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition804 words
- 2. Definitions799 words
- 198. Prosecution for offences against marriage774 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 330a1099-77ad-4a2e-b22a-769b33398f9e). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.