UDAYANATH MANSINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by 26 petitioner against the order dated 21 -10 -67 passed by Sri K. M. Das, Sub -divisional Officer and Magistrate, 1st Class, Puri, in Cri. Misc. Case No. 129/67, requiring each of the petitioners to execute interim bonds under Section 117 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code

(2.) ON the report of the Sub -Inspector of Police, Bramhagiri Police Station, dated 30 -6 -67, a proceeding under Section 107, Criminal Procedure Code was drawn up on 18 -9 -67 against 32 persons including the 26 petitioners, who in the said report, were arrayed as members of the second party. The report of the Sub -Inspector of Police, was received in the office of the Circle Inspector Puri, on 3 -7 -67, and the Circle Inspector made an endorsement thereon on 6 -7 -67 recommending action under Section 107 and also directing steps to be taken under Section 117 (3), Criminal Procedure Code The report containing the endorsement of the Circle Inspector reached the Court of the S. D. O. on 19 -7 -67 as appears from the seal of the Court and the proceedings under Section 107, Criminal Procedure Code were drawn up two months later. Thus it appears that it took about two and a half months for initiation of the proceeding from the date the police made the report and thereafter it took 12 days for notice under Section 107 to be issued from the office of the S. D. O. While the matter stood thus, the officer -in -charge, Brahmagiri Police Station, filed an application in the Court of the Sub -divisional Officer on 21 -10 -67 praying for action to be taken against the second -party -members under Section 117 (3), on which the Magistrate passed the following order;

(3.) THE principles to be followed by a Magistrate acting under Section 117 (3), Criminal Procedure Code have been laid down from time to time by this Court. It has been held in (1956) 22 Cut L T 508 : (1957 Cri LJ 147) Munshi Ghafur Khan v. Saratullah that the reasons for initiating the proceeding under Section 107, are not always the same as the reasons for calling upon a party to execute a bond. Before deciding to bind down a person during the pendency of Section 107 proceeding, the Magistrate must be satisfied that the person is prone to extremely unruly conduct and shows inclination to commit acts of violence, and to reach a satisfaction the Magistrate must apply his judicial mind to all facts and circumstances appearing in the case and record his reasons in writing for taking such an extra -ordinary step. His order must show that he applied his judicial mind and did not act mechanically. While reiterating these principles, in AIR 1961 Orissa 53, Jadumani Sahu v. The State, it was further held that the Magistrate would not be justified in calling upon the accused to execute interim bonds merely because the police report recommended it. This was again repeated in the case of Jagannath Bisoi v. The State, reported in 31 Cut L T 777 : (1965 (2) Cri LJ 830), where it was held as follow :