1. This is an application in revision from an order of the District Magistrate, dated the 17th of June 1919, confirming an order of Thakar Pateshwari Prasad Singh, Magistrate, First Class, dated the 28th of May 1919, directing the applicants to furnish security in different sums under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is urged on behalf of the applicants that the learned Magistrate committed several irregularities in the proceedings that he held against them, under Section 1G0 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and that the evidence for the defence with regard to the character of the applicants is just as good as, if not better than, that for the prosecution. In support of the first contention the learned Counsel refers this Court to the order of the Magistrate made sometime about the 2nd of April 1919. Under that order the applicants were brought before him under a warrant instead of summonses. The learned Counsel refers to the provisions of Section 114 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, where it is distinctly laid down that on information received a summons shall' issue. It is further urged that the learned Magistrate had made enquiries outside the Court and probably had formed his opinion before he commenced the proceedings against the applicants. In support of this contention the following sentences from the judgment of the Magistrate are quoted: 'With regard to Raja Sahib's part in this, I may frankly say that it was on my asking him about the character of these men that he mentioned to me but I did not quite act on it. I had my own independent inquiries made from Pataaris and Mahawa people and people of other villages.' There is some foundation for the contention for the applicants. However, in the present case I think it desirable to consider whether the evidence justifies the order made by the learned Magistrate. The evidence on behalf of the prosecution may be divided into three heada, namely, first, evidence relating to the association of the applicants with bad characters, secondly, the connection of the applicants with certain dacoities, thirdly, the evidence with regard to their character. Now with regard to the evidence as to the connection of the applicants with certain dacoities, the evidence is obviously false. Some witnesses depose to the effect that they had seen some of the applicants either immediately before or after the commission of dacoities in Chandarpur and Jnhika. They admitted in their evidence that they did not give this information to the Police when the dacoities were under investigation. It is hardly credible that the witnesses would have withheld the information from the Police during the investigation of the crimes, if they really had seen the applicants in or about the scenes of the dacoities immediately before or after their commission. Some of the witnesses depose to having been the applicants on one or two occasions taking food to or holding conversation with some people who have been recently convicted of dacoity. Again the same remark applies to these witnesses that they did not mention this fact to the Police either during the investigation or after the investigation of any of the dacoities committed recently in the district. The majority of the witnesses depose to the general repute of the applicants. They all say that the applicants are of bad character. The word used by them is 'badmash'. The witnesses are a Sub Inspector of a Thana other than that within the circle of which the applicants live, the Naib of the Raja of Joga-manpore, a Patwari and a tenant of the Raja. The number of witnesses for the prosecution is 16, two of whom only come from the village where the applicants live. The others come from other neighbouring villages. On behalf of the defence 22 witnesses have been produced, two of whom come from the village of the applicants and the others from neighbouring villages. Some of them are of good status in life as far as money goes. All of them with one voice say that the applicants are men of good character and a great many of them say that there is enmity between the applicants and the Raja of Jogamanpore. After carefully considering the evidence for both sides in the case I am compelled to come to the conclusion that the evidence for the defence is just as good as, if not better than, that for the prosecution, There can be no doubt that the present proceedings are due to the bad blood between the Raja and the applicants. I do not for a moment say that the proceedings have been initiated by the Raja and that he has procured false evidence. It is quite possible that his servants, knowing that the Raja is displeased with the applicants, have got up the case against the applicants either to please their master or get rid of men who would naturally be on bad terms with the servants of the Raja. It has been laid, down in this Court more than once that in a case under Section 110 Criminal Procedure Code, if evidence for the defence is as good as that for the prosecution, no bonds should be taken from the accused. I, therefore, allow the application, set aside the order of the lower Court and direct that if any of the applicants are in jail they should be set at liberty at once, and if any or all of them have given bonds, those bonds should be discharged.