BHUP NARAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision against an order of the Sessions Judge dismiss-ing an appeal against the order of a Magistrate requiring the applicants to furnish personal bonds in the sum of rs. 500/-, to keep the peace under Section 107, Criminal P. C.

(2.) IT appears that there was presumably some likelihood of a breach of the peace and the police made a report to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hardoi, asking proceedings to be taken under section 107, Criminal P. C. against two sets of persons of village Bawan. There were two factions in the village, one headed by Bhup Narain and Lakshmi Narain and the other headed by kamarul Hasan, Ram Shanker, Ram Saran and one other. On receipt of this report the Magistrate made an order under Section 112, Criminal P. C. and sent notices to the applicants, as also to some others, to show cause why action should not be taken against them as reported by the police. The substance of the information received was set forth in the notice issued to the applicants, and 4-3-1952 was fixed for hearing. On 4-3-1952, the applicants were examined and five of the applicants, viz. , Bhup Narain, lakshmi Narain, Bam Narain, Manohar and Laraitey, confessed that there was a likelihood of a breach of the peace while the remaining five of the applicants denied any such apprehension. Ultimately 26-3-1952 was fixed for further inquiry into the matter. On the 26th of March, an application was made on behalf of the applicants and some others volunteering to offer security provided the other set of persons to whom notices had been issued, were also asked to furnish security for keeping the peace. The Magistrate seems to have taken this offer of the applicants as a plea of guilty and ordered them to furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 500/- each. The applicants then went up in appeal and their appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Judge. They have now come up in revision.

(3.) THE applicants can be classed into two categories, that is, those who admitted that there was an apprehension of a breach of the peace and those who denied that there was any apprehension of a breach of the peace. It has been argued on behalf of the applicants that the learned Magistrate was not justified in ordering the applicants to furnish bail bonds without making a regular inquiry into the matter as to whether there was any likelihood of a breach of the peace. In support of this contention a ruling of this Court has been cited, vide -- 'jagdat Tewari v. Emperor', AIR 1920 All 29 (A ). In this case Walsh J. observed as follows :