RAMASREY PRASAD CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Original petitioners Nos. 1 to 27 filed this application in revision for quashing an order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate. Samastipur, passed on the 30th September, 1965 requiring them to execute ad interim bonds under the provisions of Section 117(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for Rs. 1000/- each with two sureties of the like amount, on the next date without fail. The application, so far as original petitioners Nos. 1 to 6 are concerned, was not admitted by this Court on the 8th August, 1967. Hence, the application of petitioners Nos. 7 to 27 is now before me for consideration.

(2.) It appears that a proceeding was drawn up against original petitioners Nos. 1 to 6 and others (not against petitioners Nos. 7 to 27) on the 13th September. 1965. under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and on the 15th September, 1965, original petitioners Nos. 1 to 6 showed cause, but the court was not satisfied with it. On the 28th September, 1965 the police made a report against petitioners Nos. 7 to 27 and prayed that action might be taken under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against them also. Again, on the 29th September the police prayed that as the situation was tense, action under Section 117(3) of the Code might be taken against petitioners Nos. 7 to 27. directing them to execute ad interim bonds. On the 30th September, 1965 both the reports were placed before the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Samastipur. The learned Magistrate, on a consideration of the police report, passed the following order :--

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners does not challenge the first part of the order by which the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate directed a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be drawn up. His main grievance is with regard to the second part of the order which directed the petitioners to execute ad interim bonds under Section 117(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintaining peace. In his submission, so far as the petitioners are concerned, the stage for the execution of ad interim bonds under Section 117(3) of the Code had not reached then and as such, the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate was not justified in directing the petitioners to execute ad interim bonds. In my opinion, there is great force in his submission.