@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Ghanshyam Prasad, J.@mdashThis application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the entire proceeding arising out of Case No. 28 of 2007 initiated u/s 107 of the Cr.P.C. including the order dated 23.2.2007 passed by S.D.M., Bagaha thereby petitioner has been directed to submit bond of Rs. 1 lac with two sureties of the like amount. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the State.
2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that initiation of proceeding as well as the final order dated 23.2.2007 passed by S.D.M, is bad and illegal. It was initiated without mentioning any overt act only because the purchasing centre of the sugarcane was closed by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the final order has been passed by the court below without resorting the procedure laid down u/s 116 of the Cr.P.C. for enquiry. No opportunity was given to the petitioner to adduce evidence in denial of the allegation nor any witness was examined on behalf of the State in support of the allegation. It is further submitted that in the final order dated 23.2.2007, the petitioner was directed to execute bond of Rs. 1 lac with two sureties without specifying the period of the bond and purpose which is illegal and bad in law being in contravention of Section 107 of the Cr.P.C.
3. Perused the impugned order dated 23.2.2007 as well as the order of initiation of the proceeding dated 6.2.2007. On perusal of the above orders, it is quite clear that there was no material before the court below to initiate proceeding u/s 107 Cr.P.C. No allegation of any overt act has been alleged against the petitioner. The proceeding has been initiated mere on vague and uncertain allegations of dissatisfaction amongst the farmers due to closure of the purchasing centre. It further appears that the final order dated 23.2.2007 has been passed without resorting to the procedure laid down u/s 116 Cr.P.C. for enquiry u/s 107 of the Cr.P.C. No opportunity was given to the petitioner to adduce evidence in denial of the allegation nor any witness was examined in support of the allegation. It also appears that the court below has passed the order against the petitioner to execute the bond without specifying the period of bond which is mandatory. In absence of specific period of bond the petitioner cannot be bond down nor he can be directed to furnish the bond. The amount of the bond is also appears to be excessive. The petitioner has been directed to execute bond of Rs. 1 lac which is apparently not proper. Apart from it no purpose for bond has been mentioned. Specifying the period as well as purpose for bond is mandatory.
4. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is quite clear that initiation of the proceeding u/s 107 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner as well as the final order dated 23.2.2007 directing the petitioner to execute bond is apparently bad and illegal and it is not sustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the impugned order as well as the entire proceeding in question is hereby quashed.
