RAM BILASH SINGH AND ORS vs THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR

Court
Patna High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14657 of 2019
======================================================
1. Ram Bilash Singh S/o Late Sone Lal Singh R/v - Budhawa, P.S.- Alauli,
Distt - Khagaria.
2. Kailash Singh S/o Late Sone Lal Singh R/v - Budhawa, P.S.- Alauli, Distt -
Khagaria.
3. Deodatt Singh S/o Late Jagdeo Singh R/v - Budhawa, P.S.- Alauli, Distt -
Khagaria.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Ajit Kumar Singh S/o Kedar Nath Singh R/v - Budhawa, P.S.- Alauli, Distt -
Khagaria.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Kumar,Adv.
Mr. Amit Prakash, Adv.
Ms. Ayushi, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 07-09-2026
1. Heard the parties.
2. The present application has been filed for
quashing the order dated 18.10.2017 passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Khagaria in Criminal Revision No. 52 of
2017, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioners
against the order dated 13.06.2017 passed by the learned
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Khagaria in Case No. 646(M) of
2017, directing the petitioners to furnish bond under Section

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14657 of 2019 dt.07-09-2026
2/4
116(3) of Cr.P.C., was confirmed.
3. The proceeding was initiated on the basis of a
report submitted by the Circle Officer, Alauli, alleging
apprehension of breach of peace in connection with a dispute
relating to possession over the land in question.
4. Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. is a preventive
provision. It empowers an Executive Magistrate, upon
receiving information that any person is likely to commit a
breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do
any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the
peace or disturb the public tranquillity, to require such
person to show cause why he should not be ordered to
execute a bond for keeping the peace for such period, not
exceeding one year, as the Magistrate thinks fit.
5. In this connection it would be apposite to
reproduce Section 107 of Cr.P.C., which is as under:-
107. Security for keeping the peace
in other cases.— (1) When an Executive Magistrate
receives information that any person is likely to commit
a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or
to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a
breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity and
is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding, he may, in the manner hereinafter provided,
require such person to show cause why he should not

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14657 of 2019 dt.07-09-2026
3/4
be ordered to execute a bond 1[with or without
sureties,] for keeping the peace for such period, not
exceeding one year, as the Magistrate thinks fit.
(2) Proceedings under this section may be taken before
any Executive Magistrate when either the place where
the breach of the peace or disturbance is apprehended
is within his local jurisdiction or there is within such
jurisdiction a person who is likely to commit a breach of
the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any
wrongful act as aforesaid beyond such jurisdiction.
6. In the present case, the proceeding under
Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. was initiated in the year 2017
and the order under Section 116(3) of the Cr.P.C. was also
passed on 13.06.2017. The order impugned before this
Court arises out of the said preventive proceeding.
7. The very object of a proceeding under Section
107 of Cr.P.C. is preventive in nature, namely, to prevent an
apprehended breach of peace. The period for which an order
under the said provision could operate is limited and cannot
exceed one year. In the present case, the said period has
long since expired.
8. Therefore, even if the impugned orders are
examined on merits at this stage, no effective or fruitful
purpose would be served, as the preventive proceeding has
lost its efficacy by efflux of time. The question of possession

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14657 of 2019 dt.07-09-2026
4/4
or title over the land in dispute is also not required to be
adjudicated in the present proceeding.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, the present application has become
infructuous and is, accordingly, disposed of as such.
10. It is made clear that this Court has not
expressed any opinion on the title or possession of either
party over the land in question. The parties shall be at liberty
to avail such remedy as may be available to them in
accordance with law in respect of their dispute relating to the
land.
11. TCR, if any, be returned to learned trial
court alongwith the copy of this judgment.

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Sudha/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 07.09.2026
Transmission Date 07.09.2026