IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.253 of 2002 1. Rajgir Thakur, son of Late Lagan Thakur. 2. Brajkishore Thakur, son of Rajgir Thakur. 3. Nawal Kishore Thakur, son of Rajgir Thakur. 4. Sudhir Thakur @ Sudhir Kumar Thakur, son of Rajgir Thakur. 5. Sanjay Kumar, son of Ram Lagan Sahani. 6. Binod Sahani, son of Late Nandan Sahni. 7. Jagdish Thakur, son of Late Ram Autar Thakur. 8. Ram Ekebal Thakur, son of Late Nirsan Thakur (All are residents of Mohalla-Church Road, Chandwara, P.S.-Town Muzaffarpur, District- Muzaffarpur. Versus 1. State Of Bihar 2. Dr.Tripurari Mishra, son of Late Harinarayan Mishra, resident of Mishra Sadan, Church Road, Chandwar, P.S.-Muzaffarpur (Town), District- Muzaffarpur. ----------- 4. 20.07.2011 The second party-petitioners have preferred this revision application against the order dated 5.02.2002 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Cr. Appeal No.109/97 by which the appeal has been dismissed against the order dated 11.09.1997 passed by the learned Magistrate, East, Muzaffarpur in Case No.M-759/95, Trial No.454/97 by which the petitioners have been directed to furnish sureties of Rs.5000/- under Section 107 Cr.P.C. for maintaining peace for one year. Heard Mr. Manindra Kishore Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. A proceeding under Section 107 Cr.P.C. was initiated on the basis of police report dated 17.10.1995 alleging therein that the petitioners have committed overt acts against the 2 opposite party no.2. Notice was issued to the petitioners to show cause as to why they should not be directed to execute bond for maintaining peace for one year. The petitioners filed their show- cause, but the learned Magistrate was not satisfied with their show-cause and directed trial of the proceeding after expiry of six months. The period of the proceeding was extended for six months. After expiry of the extended period of six months, further time was extended for three months on 12.06.1997. During the inquiry, both the parties adduced their evidence. After considering the material, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that it cannot be ruled out that the petitioners would not breach the peace and can disturb the first party- opposite party. As such, he directed the petitioners to furnish the bond of Rs.5000/- with a surety of the like amount for maintaining peace for one year and also directed to furnish the sureties on 25.09.1997. Against this order, the petitioners preferred Cr. Appeal No.109/97, which has been heard by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge and the order passed by the learned Magistrate has been confirmed and the appeal has been dismissed. Against that order, this revision application has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the proceeding under Section 107 Cr.P.C. was initiated on the basis 3 of the report dated 21.10.1995 submitted by Town Police Station, Muzaffarpur and there is no material on record to show that the petitioners have committed any overt act after the initiation of the proceeding. About 14 years have lapsed and the period of the bond has also lapsed. Learned counsel for the State could not controvert the contention of the petitioner. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, it appears that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is correct. The petitioners were directed to furnish bond of Rs.5000/- with a surety of the like amount for maintaining peace for one year. This order was passed on 11.09.1997 by the learned Executive Magistrate. There is no material on record to show that the petitioners have committed any overt act after the initiation of the proceeding and secondly period of the bond has also been expired. Now, the petitioners are not required to furnish the bond in pursuance to the aforesaid order. The petitioners will not be forced to execute the bond. This petition stands disposed of. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)