En route to the “Lehra Do Tiranga” march at Connaught Place, Delhi, on Friday (October 16), All India Students’ Association (AISA) president Neha Bora was detained from Mandi House. Delhi Police also took Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) leader Abhijeet Dipke into preventive custody ahead of the march.Bora was released early Saturday morning after completing formalities related to her detention under Section 65 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978, which allows police to remove someone who refuses to comply with their “reasonable directions”.Dipke remained in detention until Saturday evening, with proceedings against him initiated under Sections 126 and 170 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). He was produced before the Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) at Mandir Marg and subsequently released after signing another peace bond.The march was meant to protest the arrest and imprisonment of CJP leaders Ashutosh Ranka and Saurav Das, who were held for allegedly entering Jantar Mantar without permission and waving the national flag.On Wednesday, Das and Ranka were remanded to five days’ custody after they “trespassed” and entered Jantar Mantar — denotified as a protest site just a day earlier — and unfurled the national flag. Delhi Police accused the duo, along with fellow CJP activist Ajinkya Shinde, of breaching peace bonds, violating prohibitory orders, trespassing, and obstructing public officials.Das and Ranka remain in custody, while Shinde was released on a personal bond of Rs 5,000.Dipke had already signed a peace bond of Rs 50,000 on October 11, undertaking to maintain peace and good behaviour for one year. Yet, six days later, he was required to sign another following a fresh preventive arrest. What does a peace bond require, can police arrest someone who has already signed one, and when can a Magistrate demand another? We explain.A very brief timeline of action against the protestersStory continues below this adFollowing protests over the Election Commission’s handling of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise, CJP leader Abhijeet Dipke called for a mobilisation in Delhi on October 10. The Delhi Police imposed extensive restrictions ahead of the protest, including barricades, metro station closures and the suspension of mobile internet services in parts of central Delhi.On October 10, Dipke, Das and Ranka were preventively arrested upon arriving in Delhi. They were subsequently released after furnishing surety bonds of Rs 50,000 each, undertaking to maintain peace and good behaviour for one year.Also in Explained | CJP leaders Saurav Das, Ashutosh Ranka in custody: Can entering public land amount to trespass?On October 14, Das and Ranka were arrested again over alleged trespass at Jantar Mantar and remanded to judicial custody. Police also accused them of breaching their earlier peace bonds.On October 16, Bora and Dipke were detained ahead of the Connaught Place march. Bora was released early Saturday, while Dipke was granted conditional bail after signing another peace bond.Story continues below this adUnder Sections 2(1)(d) and 2(1)(e) of the BNSS, a ‘bail bond’ is an undertaking for release with surety, while a ‘bond’ is a personal undertaking for release without surety.The BNSS also stipulates bonds for keeping peace and good behaviour, the procedure for which is laid out in Sections 125 to 143 of Chapter IX of the BNSS.A peace bond is a legal undertaking to maintain public peace for a specified period. It is a preventive measure intended to address an apprehended breach of peace, rather than punishment following conviction.Can someone be arrested again after executing one?Signing a peace bond does not provide immunity from subsequent arrest. Under Section 170 of the BNSS, police can make a fresh preventive arrest if they know of a plan to commit a cognisable offence and believe it cannot otherwise be prevented.Story continues below this adSeparately, Section 141(1)(b) provides consequences for breaching an existing peace bond executed under Section 136. If the Magistrate is satisfied that the breach has been proved, and records the grounds for that finding, they may order arrest and detention until the bond period expires.Also Read | Imran Khan asked to leave India: What powers does govt have over OCI cardholders?The distinction matters in Dipke’s case. Delhi Police reportedly served him notices directing him not to proceed with the October 16 demonstration, and alleged that he failed to comply. However, it remains unclear whether the fresh proceedings involved a formally established breach of the October 11 bond or a separate apprehension of a breach of peace.Why was Dipke required to sign another bond?Under Section 126 of the BNSS, an Executive Magistrate can initiate proceedings if there are sufficient grounds to believe that a person is likely to breach the peace. The person can then be asked to explain why they should not be required to execute a bond to maintain peace for a period not exceeding one year.However, the Magistrate cannot impose such a bond automatically. Section 130 requires a written order specifying the information received, the proposed bond amount, its duration and any surety requirements. Section 135 provides for an inquiry into the grounds for requiring the bond.Story continues below this adWhile this inquiry is underway, the Magistrate may require an interim bond if immediate action is necessary to prevent a breach of peace. If the inquiry establishes that security is necessary, the Magistrate may order a bond under Section 136. Otherwise, the person must be discharged under Section 137.In Dipke’s case, the October 11 bond did not prevent the authorities from initiating fresh proceedings under Section 126. However, it remains unclear whether the second bond was an interim measure pending an inquiry or was imposed after an inquiry. The SEM’s order would be needed to establish the grounds for requiring another bond while the earlier undertaking remained in force.NewsletterFollow our daily newsletter so you never miss anything important. On Wednesday, we answer readers' questions.SubscribeBy contrast, Neha Bora was detained under the Delhi Police Act. Section 65 of the Act allows police to remove someone who refuses to comply with their “reasonable directions”, which concern a police officer’s legal functions, including maintaining public order, regulating traffic, or preventing an imminent crime.This provision allows Delhi Police to release detainees in trivial cases once the circumstances necessitating their removal end. The person thus removed must either be produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate or released within 24 hours.Story continues below this adSection 119 of the Delhi Police Act lists the penalty for contravening Section 65 — a person convicted under this section shall be punished with a fine which may extend to fifty rupees.