Magistrate Ritu Raj issued the direction on Wednesday after Bora’s lawyer, Abhik Chimni, submitted that documents supplied by police were incomplete and failed to disclose essential particulars of the cases being used to justify a proposed peace bond.
The magistrate’s order requires police to furnish the FIRs before the next hearing, enabling Bora’s legal team to examine the allegations and prepare its response to the proceedings initiated under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Chimni argued that police had relied upon six FIRs as evidence of Bora’s alleged criminal antecedents while withholding copies of those documents. The omission, he submitted, prevented the defence from adequately addressing the grounds mentioned in the show-cause notice.
Police legal consultants Prashant Prakash and Bhagwan Dass told the magistrate that the FIRs were sensitive in nature. They undertook to provide the documents by November 20, when the matter is scheduled for further consideration.
The directive follows a Delhi High Court judgment on October 23 dismissing Bora’s petition challenging the initiation of peace-bond proceedings. Although the court upheld the validity of the notice, it instructed police to disclose all material relied upon and required the magistrate to observe principles of natural justice before making any final order.
The High Court found sufficient material for initiating proceedings under Sections 126 and 130 of the BNSS. Its decision did not establish Bora’s guilt in any criminal case or determine whether she must ultimately execute the proposed bond.
The distinction remains significant because preventive proceedings concern an apprehended breach of public peace rather than punishment following conviction. The authorities must establish grounds for requiring an undertaking, while the person concerned must receive an opportunity to contest the material presented.
Bora appeared before the magistrate at Mandir Marg on Wednesday afternoon but again declined to furnish the bond. Her legal representatives instead sought additional documents concerning the allegations, maintaining that the information previously supplied was insufficient.
The police had earlier provided a kalandara, a formal police report submitted for preventive action, dated October 17, together with three general diary entries recorded at different police stations.
Chimni maintained that these records did not contain the complete particulars of the six FIRs mentioned in the proceedings. The fresh application consequently focused on disclosure of documents rather than an immediate determination of the underlying allegations.
The dispute concerns a notice issued after Bora was detained during a protest at Mandi House on October 16. Demonstrators associated with AISA demanded the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, alleging irregularities involving electoral rolls and the Special Intensive Revision exercise.
Bora was released the following morning, after which police initiated preventive proceedings seeking a personal bond of Rs 10,000 and one surety to maintain peace.
The notice referred to alleged provocative sloganeering at Mandi House, demonstrations around Jantar Mantar despite prohibitory orders and accusations that Bora encouraged people to participate in a protest at Connaught Place.
These remain police allegations, contested by Bora, rather than judicial findings establishing criminal liability.
Bora has maintained that requiring her to execute a peace bond for participating in political demonstrations interferes with democratic dissent. She has repeatedly refused to sign the undertaking and challenged the legality of the proceedings before the High Court.
The High Court rejected her challenge to the notice, holding that the magistrate possessed sufficient material to begin an inquiry. It nevertheless emphasised that procedural safeguards must be observed before any decision requiring a bond.
The judgment also required the magistrate to examine the material independently and record reasons when reaching a final determination, preserving Bora’s opportunity to challenge the allegations during the inquiry.
Wednesday marked Bora’s fourth refusal to furnish the bond. The proceedings were deferred after her counsel renewed the demand for documents that police had cited but not supplied.
The October 28 hearing had been fixed following an earlier appearance on October 24, when police provided records pursuant to the High Court’s directions and Bora’s lawyers sought time to examine them.
The six FIRs remain central to the pending inquiry because police have relied upon them in describing Bora’s antecedents. Their disclosure will allow the defence to examine the specific cases before submitting its response at the November 20 hearing.
