IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1398 of 2011 1. Md. Abbas son of late Md. Alimuddin. 2. Md. Shahbaz son of Md. Abbas 3. Md. Meraj @ Md. EMeraj son of Md. Abbas 4. Md. Shahabuddin Gauri S/o Late Md. Rustam. 5. Md. Rashid son of Md. Ahsan Ali, all are resident of Mohalla Sadaruddin Chak, P.S. Habibpur, Dist. Bhagalpur …..Petitioners. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Md. Samid 3. Md. Hamid both sons of late Md. Nasir, R/o Mohalla Sadaruddin Chak, P.S. Habibpur Dist. Bhagalpur …opposite parties. ---------------- For the petitioners: Mr. Abdul Mannan Kha, Advocate. Mr. NajmulHoda,Advocate. For the State : Mr. G.S. Gupta, A.P.P. ----------- 3 15.12.2011 I.A. No.2326 of 2011 has been filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the revision application. It is submitted that the petitioner no.1 Md. Abbas is Karta of the family and due to his illness the petitioners could not file the petition earlier. The delay has been properly explained. The delay in filing the revision application is condoned. I.A. No. 2326 of 2011 stands allowed. Second party petitioners have preferred this revision application against the order dated 19.5.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge F.T.C. No. IInd, Bhagalpur in Cr. Appeal No. 129 of 2008 by which the order dated 18.6.2008 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate in Misc. Case No. 469 of 2007 has been confirmed. 2 Main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that a proceeding under section 107 Cr.P.C. was initiated against both the parties and after adducing the evidence the learned magistrate directed the members of the second party under section 117 of the Cr.P.C. to furnishing a bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of like amount each for maintenance of peace for one year. The period of bond has already expired and there is no material on the record to show that the petitioners have committed any overt act. Learned counsel for the State could not controvert the contention of the petitioners. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the State and on perusal of the impugned order it appears that vide order dated 18.6.2008 the petitioners were directed by the learned Executive Magistrate to execute a bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of like amount each for maintenance of peace for one year. The period of bond has already expired. The learned counsel for the State has not controverted the fact that the petitioners have committed any overt act after passing of the impugned order. More than three years have passed from passing of the order dated 18.6.2008 by the learned Executive Magistrate. Considering the fact and circumstances, it is directed that no coercive steps will be taken against the petitioners to execute the bond. The petition stands disposed of M.Rahman (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J) 3