AVIRAM PANI AND ORS. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is against an order of the Court below directing the Petitioners to furnish interim bond under Section 117(3) , Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) MR . Dey, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners contends that the impugned order cannot be maintained as the Magistrate before issuing the said order did not consider the affidavits filed by the Petitioners showing cause against their furnishing the interim bonds. In support of his above contention he cited the decision in Upendranath Kanungo and 25 Ors. v. State : 32 (1966) C.L.T. 742, relevant portion of which is as follows:

(3.) MR . Dey also contends that the names of several Petitioners do not find mention in the Station diary entries which formed the basis for the proceeding. The Magistrate should consider this aspect of the matter in the proper perspective.