Shamsher Bahadur, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition of Kartar Singh and Ram Labhaya Mal who are being proceeded against under sections 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On arrest the petitioners were called upon to furnish bail -bonds in the sum of Rs. 75,000/ - each, though these came to be reduced subsequently to Rs. 35,000/ - in the case of Kartar Singh and to Rs. 20,000/ in the case of Ram Labhaya Mal. The occasion for the proceedings arose on 31st of August, 1963 when Bawan Dwadshi fair was to be held in the town of Ambala. There seems to have been soma tension between the Akali Jatha Ambala and the Sanatan Dharam Sabha Ambala and consequently it was considered essential to take proceedings as a breach of peace was apprehended.
(2.) IN this petition two prayers have been made. Firstly, it is submitted that the bail -bonds are excessive and should be reduced and secondly, that the proceedings under section 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be quashed as the occasion which gave rise to breach of peace no longer exists. In my opinion, the contentions of the learned counsel are correct and the petition should succeed. There is an authority of the Patna High Court in Mirza Zulfakar Beg v. King Emperor : A.I.R. 1927 Pat. 231, in which it was held by Das J. that: Where the persons, against whom proceedings under section 107 are started, were likely to commit a breach of the peace on a particular occasion and that occasion passed off without any disturbance it cannot be inferred from their intention in the past that they are likely to do the same thing in future. Binding over such persons becomes in such a case unnecessary. On a parity of reasoning, it has been urged by Mr. Gujral that the strained feeling which, according to the prosecution, were generated between the two rival groups on the occasion of the Bawan Dwadshi cannot be regarded as a permanent and perpetual feature especially when the police complaint itself says that on Bawan Dwadshi fair the two rival groups had threatened to take out religious diwans which might have disturbed the peace. On behalf of the State, it is contended by Mr. Hoshiarpuri that it is for the Magistrate to determine whether there are still strained feelings between the two communities to draw a conclusion that there still exists a likelihood of breach of peace. A similar argument was raised before Das J. in Mirza Zulfakar Beg v. King -Emperor : A.I.R. 1927 Pat. 231 where it was pointed out to the Court that although the particular occasion has passed the feelings were still strained between the two communities and there was a likelihood of breach of peace. Such an argument did not prevail in the High Court though the Magistrate had thought that he had no power to drop the proceedings. The proceedings could be quashed if on the evidence itself no prima facie case is shown to exist. I am of the view that in the context and background of this case there can be no reasonable apprehension of a breach of peace nor even if the allegations of the prosecution are accepted and consequently there hardly remains any justification to take action under section 107/151, Code of Criminal Procedure.
(3.) IN this view of the matter, I direct that no further action should be taken in the matter and the proceedings would be accordingly quashed. Even if I was inclined to take the view that the proceedings could still continue before the Magistrate, I Would in any event have reduced the bail -bonds to Rs. 1,000/ - in each case, but it is no longer necessary to make that direction as the petitioners also succeed under section 561 -A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.;