Sureshwar Pratap Sahi and Others vs Jogi Balak Dass

M.P. Verma, J.—Seen the supplementary affidavit filed today and heard counsel for the petitioners. It appeals that, on the 1st February, 1970, the learned Magistrate, on a report of the Officer-in-charge of Sursand P.S., drew up a proceeding u/s 107 Cr.P.C. against both the parties and called upon them to execute bonds of RS. 1000/- each, with two sureties of the like amount, to maintain peace for a period of one year. On the 3rd February, 1970, petitioner no. 1 appeared before the learned Magistrate, and the other two petitioners were absent because it was reported that notices had not been served on them. There upon, the learned Magistrate called upon petitioner no. 1 to furnish bail of Rs. 1000/-, with two sureties of the like amount. Against this order of the learned Magistrate, this revision has been filed in this Court.

From the impugned order it appeals that some observation made by this Court in another case concerning the same topic was interpreted by the learned Magistrate as an opinion of a Judge of this Court. I want to make it clear to the learned Magistrate that, even if it is an opinion of a Judge of this Court, it is binding upon him nonetheless. I will again repeat that, in a case u/s 107 Cr.P.C., the parties cannot be put in the class of accused persons and so no bail bond should be taken from them for their attendance, unless it is found absolutely necessary. In other words, if the parties appear on the date fixed, they cannot be asked to execute bail bonds for their appearance. If they absent themselves on any date fixed by the Court, then it is in the discretion of the Court either to issue summonses, warrants of the arrest against them, and only in that situation the question of taking bail bonds arises. I think the learned Magistrate will now understand the law carefully and will not insist on the petitioner no. 1 to execute bail bond for his appearance. With these observation, this application is disposed of.