BUDHU RAM Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON a report dated 23 -1 -79 submitted by the Officer -in -charge of Kalunga Police Station in the district of Sundergarh, the Magistrate being satisfied that there was likelihood of apprehension of breach of peace, initiated a proceeding under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the petitioner Nos. 3 to 7 and three others. That very day, an application was filed by the Officer -in -charge alleging that the members of the second party were illiterate advisasis and, therefore, they should be taken into custody by a direction for their immediate arrest, under the proviso to Section 113 of the Cr. P.C. and the learned Magistrate issued non -bailable warrants of arrest against them. On 21 -2 -79 the members of the second party except Bhona Topu in fear of arrest, appeared before the Magistrate and made a motion for being enlarged on bail. They were asked by the Magistrate to produce bailors without directing in his order or intimating the party for what amount each was to be enlarged on bail. One Budhuram Oram was offered as a bailor and on the materials placed before the Magistrate, he found that the said bailor was solvent to the extent of Rs. 30,000/ -, but rejected him on the ground that he was not solvent to the extent of Rs. 35,000/ - i.e. at the rate of Rs. 5,000/ - for each member. According to the petitioners, the record is replete with acts and omissions constituting harassment of the members of the second party who were illiterate adivasis. However, when it was found that the bailor was solvent only to the extent of Rs. 30,000/ - and not to Rs. 35,000/ -, the bail application moved by the seven of the second party members was rejected and the delinquents except the female member, Guhi Gramin, were directed to be taken into jail custody. Some time later that day, the delinquents produced another bailor who was solvent to the extent of Rs. 50,000/ - and the Magistrate directed their release on bail.

(2.) CURIOUSLY , however, before actually setting them free, the Magistrate directed the second party members, who appeared before him that day, to execute interim bonds forthwith for Rs. 5,000/ - each for keeping peace. The counsel for the petitioners submits that the second party members who were still in custody had no other alternative, but to execute the bonds and they were enlarged on bail thereafter.

(3.) THE events narrated above leave no doubt that the Magistrate grossly offended against the mandatory provisions contained in Sections 112, 114 and 116 of the Criminal Procedure Code and exhibited a total lack of judicial approach and of human feelings. When the second party members appeared before the Magistrate on 21 -2 -79, neither was the order read over, the substance thereof explained, nor was a copy of the order delivered to them intimating them the substance of the information received by the Magistrate on the basis whereof the proceeding under Section 107 had been started, Counsel for the second party members submits that the petitioners were kept totally in dark. After their appearance in court, harassment upon harassment was piled on the members of the second party and according to him, the events of 21.2.1979 did not put a finish to the episode of suffering meted out by the Court. It appears that the case was adjourned on some dates and posted to 14 -6 -79 for filing of show cause. That day, an application for adjournment was filed on behalf of the members of the second party through their counsel. No sooner he filed the petition, he faced a report submitted by the Officer in -charge, which had been called for by the Magistrate on a petition filed by the first party, Harikishan Agarwal, on 12 -6 -79. A copy of the said application had not been served on the members of the second party or their counsel. They had no notice of the said petition or the action taken by the Magistrate. The order passed by the Magistrate appears to have been passed by an endorsement on the petition and thus, there was no mention of any order having been passed on 12 -6 -79 in the order -sheet. The counsel for the second party members submits that such a step was taken behind the back of the members of the second party so that an adverse report could be obtained by the next date fixed so that the members of the second party could be further harassed. On 14 -6 -79, the Magistrate after perusing the report and affidavit filed on behalf of Sri Agarwal, held that the members of the second party had violated the conditions of the interim bonds executed by them and, so holding, the learned Magistrate forfeited the bonds of Sakari Oram, Puran Oram, Bitra Oram, Temba Oram and Choga Oram and directed non -bailable warrants to issue. By the very order, he held that petitioner No. 2 and three others (not already parties) were to be bound down as delinquents in the 107 proceeding pending before him and directed non -bailable warrants to issue against them.