IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.888 of 2009 1. MUNNA YADAV 2. TEJAN YADAV 3. VIJAY YADAV 4. INDRA DEO YADAV --- PETITIONERS. Versus STATE OF BIHAR --- OPP. PARTY.. For the Petitioners : Mr. Pamashray Roy, Advocate. For the State : Mr. J.K. Singh no.1. ----------- 02 06.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. Petitioners are second party to the proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short „the Code‟). On a consideration of the evidence adduced on behalf of the first party and the show cause of the petitioners learned Sub Divisional Magistrate by order dated 23.05.2008 directed the petitioners to execute bond(s) for maintaining peace and good behaviour for a period of one year. Aggrieved by the said order they preferred appeal being Cr. Appeal no. 29 of 2008. Learned appellate Court traced the history which prompted the police to initiate a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code. Learned appellate Court also appraised the evidence adduced on behalf of the first party. The petitioners did not utilize the opportunity to adduce evidence of any witness. Having considered the matter, learned lower appellate Court observed as under in para 9:- “9. In this way from perusal of the deposition of the witnesses it is evident that there is apprehension of breach of peace still exist. The high handness of the appellants are apparent from the police report also. Therefore, the learned 2 Magistrate was of the opinion that the petitioner should furnish a bond of Rs. 2000/- for keeping peace for one year with two sureties of like amount.” Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show any patent illegality /infirmity in the order meriting interference. The application is dismissed. Sym (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)