Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
The question asks about the category of persons from whom a bond for good behaviour can be demanded under Sections 109 and 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). These are preventive provisions aimed at preventing crime.
Step 2: Key Legal Provision:
Chapter VIII of the CrPC deals with "Security for Keeping the Peace and for Good Behaviour."
- Section 109 CrPC: Deals with taking security for good behaviour from persons taking precautions to conceal their presence with a view to committing a cognizable offence, or who have no ostensible means of subsistence and cannot give a satisfactory account of themselves.
- Section 110 CrPC: Deals with taking security for good behaviour from habitual offenders. This section lists various categories, such as persons who are by habit robbers, house-breakers, thieves, forgers, or are so desperate and dangerous as to render their being at large without security hazardous to the community.
Step 3: Detailed Explanation:
Section 110 is directly aimed at persons who are known to be habitual offenders. Section 109 deals with suspicious persons who are likely to commit offences. Together, these sections target individuals whose past conduct or current circumstances suggest they are a threat to public peace and order, including those who are known to be habitual criminals.
- Option (A) Habitual offenders is the most accurate description, especially for Section 110, which is specifically designed for them.
- Option (B) White-collar criminals are not the specific target of these sections, although a person who is a habitual white-collar offender could potentially be covered.
- Option (C) Jail inmates are already in custody; these provisions apply to people who are at large in the community.
Step 4: Final Answer:
Police can seek a bond for good behaviour under Sections 109 and 110 of the CrPC primarily from suspicious persons and habitual offenders.
Having heard the learned Counsels for the parties, and on perusal of the ma terial on record, the primary issue which arises for consideration of this Court is ”whether a review or recall of an order passed in a criminal proceeding initiated under section 340 of CrPC is permissible or not?” [...] A careful consideration of the statutory provisions and the aforesaid decisions of this Court clarify the now-well settled position of jurisprudence of Section 362 of CrPC which when summarized would be that the criminal courts, as envisaged under the CrPC, are barred from altering or reviewing in their own judgments except for the exceptions which are explicitly provided by the statute, namely, correction of a clerical or an arithmetical error that might have been committed or the said power is provided under any other law for the time being in force. As the courts become functus officio the very moment a judgment or an order is signed, the bar of Section 362 CrPC becomes applicable. Despite the powers provided under Section 482 CrPC which, this veil cannot allow the courts to step beyond or circumvent an explicit bar. It also stands clarified that it is only in situations wherein an application for recall of an order or judgment seeking a procedural review that the bar would not apply and not a substantive review where the bar as contained in Section 362 CrPC is attracted. Numerous decisions of this Court have also elaborated that the bar under said provision is to be applied stricto sensu.
(Extracted with edits and revisions from Vikram Bakshi v. RP Khosla 2025 INSC 1020)