When an Executive Magistrate receives information that there is within his local jurisdiction a person who—

   (a)  is by habit a robber, house-breaker, thief, or forger; or

   (b)  is by habit a receiver of stolen property knowing the same to have been stolen; or

   (c)  habitually protects or harbours thieves, or aids in the concealment or disposal of stolen property; or

   (d)  habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of, the offence of kidnapping, abduction, extortion, cheating or mischief, or any offence punishable under Chapter X of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, or under section 178, section 179, section 180 or section 181 of that Sanhita; or

   (e)  habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of, offences, involving a breach of the peace; or

   (f)  habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of—

   (i)  any offence under one or more of the following Acts, namely:—

   (a)  the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940;

   (b)  the Foreigners Act, 1946;

   (c)  the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952;

   (d)  the Essential Commodities Act, 1955;

   (e)  the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955;

   (f)  the Customs Act, 1962;

   (g)  the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006; or

   (ii)  any offence punishable under any other law providing for the prevention of hoarding or profiteering or of adulteration of food or drugs or of corruption; or

   (g)  is so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large without security hazardous to the community,

such Magistrate may, in the manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bail bond, for his good behaviour for such period, not exceeding three years, as the Magistrate thinks fit.