SATCHIKANTA BEHERA Vs. PRAVABATI PRADHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second party in a proceeding under Section 107, Code of Criminal Procedure is the Petitioner. He is aggrieved by the Order 9 -7 -1971 made by the learned Magistrate under Section 117(3) Code of Criminal Procedure directing him to furnish an interim bond. In fact by the very notice in the proceeding the learned Magistrate caned upon him to show cause as to why he may not be required to furnish an interim bond under the aforesaid provision for Rs. 500/ - with one surety. The notice was dated 31 -5 -1971. The second party showed cause on 2 -7 -1971. The case was heard on 6 -7 -1971 and the impugned order was made on 9 -7 -1971. The enquiry of the main matter admittedly had not begun by the time the order for the interim bond was made. Reliance is placed on the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye v. S.D.M. Monghyr, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 2486. In the said case it was clearly indicated that until some evidence was brought on record in course of an enquiry an order for an interim bond was not contemplated. Their Lordships further observed that the enquiry under the section is to ascertain the truth of the necessary information. It is pending the completion of the inquiry that an interim bond can be asked for if immediate measures are necessary and in default to put the person in custody. If the magistrate makes no effort to enquire into the truth of the allegation and adjourns the case from day to day and yet asks for an interim bond the case becomes entirely one sided. What was necessary was that there should have been an enquiry into the truth of the information sufficient to make out a prima facie case against the person so that in default of furnishing an interim bond he could be put in jeopardy of detention.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY in this case no evidence has been taken. Mr. Moharana for the opposite party relied upon an affidavit said to have been filed on 5.6 -1971 before the learned Magistrate. There is no mention of this affidavit in the order -sheet though the lower Court records contain the affidavit. The learned Magistrate has not relied on the allegations in the affidavit either. Mr. Moharana. placed reliance upon 8 later decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Govinder Singh v. Bachubhai : A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 528. In paragraph 7 of this judgment it has been said.