Neha Bora moves HC against police notice, likely to seek urgent hearing

Neha Bora has filed a petition in the Delhi High Court against a police notice requiring her to justify why she should not execute a peace bond. The notice was issued under Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, or BNSS. Her challenge matters because the notice could restrict her through preventive proceedings linked to protests.

Bora asks the court to quash the notice. She also seeks directions preventing police from taking coercive action against her. Her petition says the notice is vague, factually wrong, and unsupported by material showing that she was likely to breach the peace.

Bora is likely to seek an urgent hearing because the matter had not yet been listed. She argues that the proceedings are a colourable use of preventive powers to suppress peaceful dissent, violating constitutional protections for speech, assembly, and personal liberty.

A BNSS Section 126 peace bond is a preventive undertaking. It requires a person to provide a personal bond, sometimes with a surety, promising to keep the peace for a specified period. The provision is designed to address an anticipated disturbance before it happens, rather than punish a completed offence.

The article says a special executive magistrate can require such a bond when credible information indicates that a person is likely to breach the peace, disturb public tranquillity, or commit a wrongful act that could cause such a disturbance. In Bora’s case, the notice demanded a personal bond and one surety after police cited protest-related conduct.

Bora disputes that basis. She says the notice gives no material supporting the alleged likelihood of disorder and does not identify a specific period, occasion, or event connected to the feared breach. The High Court challenge tests whether the notice properly uses this preventive power.

The police notice required Neha Bora to provide a personal bond of Rs 10,000. It also required one surety. Together, these were presented as security for keeping the peace during the relevant period of enquiry.

The notice was issued on October 17 under Section 126 of the BNSS. It directed Bora to appear before a special executive magistrate on October 19 and show cause why she should not execute the bond. The personal bond was her own financial undertaking, while the surety was an additional guarantee connected with compliance.

The article does not state that Bora paid the amount or furnished the surety. Instead, it reports that she challenged the notice in the Delhi High Court and asked for it to be quashed. She also sought protection from coercive action while contesting the police proceedings.

Police relied on several protest-related events to support the claim that Bora might disturb public peace. The notice referred to alleged sloganeering at Mandi House on October 16, repeated protests around Jantar Mantar despite prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS, and allegedly instigating people to join a Central Park protest.

Bora contests each part of that account. Her petition says the claim that she instigated the Central Park demonstration is factually wrong. She says her call was for a peaceful gathering at Mandi House at 5 p.m. on October 16, and that she was detained from Mandi House.

She also says the notice did not identify any specific prohibitory order or incident. According to her plea, the only order on record, dated August 23, did not cover Mandi House and exempted Jantar Mantar Road. The High Court will consider her challenge if the matter is listed.

The notice required Bora to appear before a special executive magistrate and show cause why she should not execute a personal bond of Rs 10,000 with one surety. If the High Court does not block the notice, that proceeding could continue. The notice concerns keeping peace for the period of enquiry.

The article does not state the precise penalty or legal consequence if Bora refuses to comply. It also does not report that she has paid the bond or supplied the surety. Her petition specifically asks the court to direct police not to take coercive action against her, showing that she seeks protection while challenging the proceedings.

The immediate next step described is a possible urgent hearing in the High Court, because the petition had not yet been listed. Whether the court blocks the notice, allows the process to continue, or grants another form of relief is not stated in the article.

Bora’s challenge connects directly to Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), and 21 of the Constitution. In the petition, she says the police proceedings interfere with free speech, peaceful assembly, and personal liberty. These rights matter because the disputed police action followed protests and a call for a peaceful gathering.

Her plea says the notice is vague and does not show why a breach of peace was likely. It also says the notice fails to identify a specific period, occasion, or event connected to the feared disturbance. Bora argues that the proceedings are a colourable exercise of preventive powers aimed at suppressing peaceful dissent.

The police, however, cited alleged sloganeering, repeated protests despite prohibitory orders, and alleged instigation of a Central Park demonstration. The High Court challenge therefore raises a conflict between preventive public-order action and the constitutional protections Bora says apply to her protest activity.

Preventive police action is meant to avert a possible disturbance, not to punish someone for a completed crime. Under the article’s description of Section 126, a magistrate may demand a peace bond when credible information suggests a person is likely to breach the peace, disturb public tranquillity, or commit a wrongful act causing such disturbance.

Bora’s notice illustrates that mechanism. Police cited alleged sloganeering, protests around Jantar Mantar, and alleged encouragement of a Central Park demonstration. They sought a bond before any finding described in the article that Bora had committed a completed offence. The proceeding therefore focuses on anticipated conduct and public order.

Bora argues that the preventive basis is unsupported. She says the notice is vague, contains an incorrect account of her call, and does not identify a specific event or period when a breach was expected. Her High Court petition challenges whether this preventive power was properly used against her.