Security proceedings for keeping the peace occupy a difficult position between the State’s responsibility to prevent violence and the individual’s right not to suffer coercion on suspicion alone. Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 permits an Executive Magistrate to require a person to show cause against a peace bond where sufficiently grounded information indicates a likely breach of the peace, disturbance of public tranquillity, or wrongful act probably producing either consequence. This paper argues that the provision is constitutionally defensible only when understood as a graduated, evidence-tested and proportionate mechanism, rather than an administrative shortcut to detention. Using doctrinal analysis of the statutory scheme and decisions under the corresponding earlier provisions, it distinguishes initiation, interim security and final security as separate legal thresholds. It examines notice, inquiry, time limits, sureties, default imprisonment and judicial supervision, while identifying risks associated with mechanical police reports, unaffordable bonds and restrictions on lawful dissent. The paper proposes an individualised necessity framework, affordability assessment, timely review and transparent recordkeeping. These refinements preserve preventive capacity without converting anticipation of disorder into punishment without conviction.