G.K. Misra, J.
1. This revision is directed against an order dated 3-4-1964 of the S. D. O., Bhanjanagar. The entire order is extracted hereunder:
All the respondents except Pana and Harischandra Bisoi are present. S. R. not back. The accused party has filed written statements. The C. S. I. wants interim bonds to be taken from the members of the second party, as the O.I. C., Bhanjanagar has alleged certain overt acts against the members of the second party. The second party members to execute an interim bond of Rs. 500/-.
The order itself shows that the Magistrate directed the members of the second party to execute an interim bond merely because the Court Sub-Inspector wanted him to do so on the allegation of the Officer-in-charge, Bhanjanagar about certain overt acts.
2. The order is directly contrary to the provisions of Section 117 (3), Criminal P. C. Under the sub-section, pending completion of the enquiry under Sub-section (1) the Magistrate, 'if he considers that immediate measures are necessary for the breach of the peace or disturbance of the public tranquillity or the Commission of any offence or for the public safety may, 'for reasons to be recorded in writing,' direct the person in respect of whom the order under Section 112 has been made to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for keeping the peace or maintaining good behaviour until the conclusion of the inquiry. The -underlined (here in' ') words are significant. It is essential for the Magistrate that he would apply his mind to consider if immediate measurers are necessary. It is possible for a Magistrate to take a view different from the report made by the Officer-in-charge despite allegation of overt acts. A further condition has also been added that the Magistrate must record his reasons in writing. Both these elements require that the Magistrate would apply his judicial mind to the facts of the case and then determine if immediate measures ate necessary and (interim bonds are to be called for.
3. The order extracted shows that the Magistrate did not apply his mind at all and did not record his reasons. He allowed the prayers of the Court Sub-Inspector merely because there was some allegation of overt acts reported by the Officer-in-charge. This matter has been considered fully in this Court in Ghafur Khan v. S.K. Saratullah, 22 Cut L T 508 : 1957 Cri L J 147 & Jadumoni Sahu v. The State : AIR1961Ori53 .
4. The order dated 3-4-1964 passed by the Magistrate is accordingly quashed and the revision is allowed.