BABU LAL SAO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Although this application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of suit no. 1353 (M) of 1979, a proceeding under Sec. 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at present pending in the court of Sri M. Hasan, Executive Magistrate, Patna, but the learned counsel appearing for, the petitioners limited his arguments to a single point i. e. whether the Executive Magistrate could have sent the bail bonds or the interim bond, as the case may be, executed by the petitioners after they were arrested under section 113 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to the local police for verification. The S. D. M,, Patna, by his order dated 13-10-1979 drew up a proceeding under Sec. 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which the petitioners were the second party the first party being the members of a recognized Union. The police had reported that while the workers of the recognized Union were going to take up their duties the petitioners obstructed them and that had caused a tension and imminent danger to the public tranquillity. On 30-10-1979 the police again submitted a report that the breach of the peace could not be prevented otherwise than by the immediate arrest of the petitioners whereafter an order for the issuance of warrant of their arrest was passed. The petitioner no. 1 was arrested on 5-11-1979 and was directed to execute a bond of Rs. 2.000 for keeping peace during the pendency of the case. On 15-11-1979 petitioner no. 1, Babu Lall Sao, produced the bond before the court. The Magistrate sent it for enquiry to Sri R. B. Singh, another Executiue Magistrate, perhaps subordinate to him. Sri R, B. Singh, however; did not submit any report. On 5-12-1979 the case was transferred to the court of Sri M. Hasan for disposal who by his order sent the bail bond to local police for verification about the fitness of the sureties.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners referred to the provisions of Sec. 441 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and pointed out that the Magistrates for finding out Whether the sureties were fit or suffcient should have called upon the persons concerned to submit affidavits in proof of the facts contained therein relating to the sufficiency or the fitness of the sureties or, if he considered it necessary could have held an enquiry hinself or used an enquiry in this regard to be made by a Magistrate subordinate to that court. It is clear that the Magistrate could nut have sent the bond for verification to the police. In the instant case the Magistrate did not think it necessary to hold an enquiry himself and the Magistrate to whom such an enquiry had been entrusted had failed to submit any enquiry report and, therefore, the only coarse left is to call upon the petitioner concerned to file affidavits in proof of the facts contained in the bond relating to the sufficiency of the said sureties whereafter the petitioner concerned if still in custody, will be released forthwith. The order of the Magistrate whereby the bond was sent to the police for verification is quashed. The Magistrate will dispose of the matter in the manner stated above.

(3.) The application is, accordingly, disposeed of. Application allowed.