JUDGMENT 1. The Petitioners, two of whom are landed proprietors and the third is their manager, having been called upon by Mr. Foster, the Officiating Deputy Commissioner of Hazaribagh, to show cause why they should not furnish security to keep the peace were ordered to hajat without the option of giving bail pending the enquiry. This Court upon motion by the Petitioners, apprehending that the order of the Deputy Commissioner was ultra vires directed under sec. 498, Cr. P. C., that the Petitioners should be admitted to bail, and called on the Deputy Commissioner for an explanation of his action. 2. Mr. Foster in an explanation which plainly shows that he is impatient of control, and resents what he terms the intervention of the High Court, has ventured to assert that this Court has acted without any consideration for "a District Magistrate's prestige" and in a manner "likely to open an avenue to future lawlessness." 3. Mr. Foster, who is an officer of only 8 years' service, should instead of chafing under the statutory control of the High Court and using improper language, welcome the interposition of higher authority, which is calculated to check the errors of impulse and inexperience and to correct illegal actions, which might otherwise lead to serious consequences. He no doubt occupies a high and responsible position, as he is careful to remind us, but that does not give him license to send men to jail without justification in law, nor to adopt the arrogant tone of one who considers his action beyond criticism and correction. 4. This is a typical case indicating the necessity of a controlling authority to rectify the mistakes and illegalities committed by Magistrates. 5. The admitted facts are briefly as follows :--Mr. Chrestien holds Gadi Masnodi under a lease from the Heswa Babus, including two of the Petitioners. Some of the shareholders have disputed the validity of the lease, and in 1902 the Subordinate Judge of Gaya declared the zemindary portion of the lease void so far as 9 3/4 annas is concerned. This decree has not been put into execution and an appeal is now pending in the High Court. On the 27th March 1904 the Sub-Inspector of Police sent up a formal report against the Petitioners and others saying that with no legal justification they were making preparation to forcibly eject Mr. Chrestien from the leasehold property. This decree has not been put into execution and an appeal is now pending in the High Court. On the 27th March 1904 the Sub-Inspector of Police sent up a formal report against the Petitioners and others saying that with no legal justification they were making preparation to forcibly eject Mr. Chrestien from the leasehold property. The Deputy Commissioner then called on both Mr. Chrestien and the opposite party to show cause why they should not give security to keep the peace under sec. 107, Cr. P. C. The 23rd April was fixed for hearing. There was some delay in the service of notices and then warrants were issued on the opposite party. The three Petitioners appeared before the Deputy Commissioner and were by him enlarged on their own recognizances. At the same time the Deputy Commissioner directed the Police to enquire regarding the present state of affairs on the property, and what signs there were that the Petitioners were taking forcible possession thereof. On the 13th May the District Superintendent of Police arrested the Petitioners under sec. 55, Cr. P. C., and sent them up for prosecution under sec. 110(e), Cr. P. C. They arrived at head-quarters on the evening of the 15th May and were next day enlarged on bail. 6. On the 17th May they were re-arrested and sent to hajat by a telegraphic order of the Deputy Commissioner (who was then in camp) communicated to the Deputy Magistrate in charge at headquarters, 7. Mr. Foster states that he had decided to keep to the proceedings under sec. 107, Cr. P. C., rather than resort to sec. 110. Me adds : "But as the D. S. P. had impounded hukumnamahs from the Heswa zemindars, empowering Raghunandan Pershad and Domi. Singh to collect ground rents' in Mr. Chrestien's property, and as they were caught at the time of making collect ions, I decided that it would not be safe, with a view to the public peace to release them ; so I acted under sec. 114, Cr. P. C., and sent them to hajat without bail. I telegraphed this order from camp on receipt of the D. S. P.'s report. 114, Cr. P. C., and sent them to hajat without bail. I telegraphed this order from camp on receipt of the D. S. P.'s report. The D. S. P.'s very careful report (after local investigation) ends as follows : --I must put on record that in my opinion if these three men are released on bail, prior to the trial of the case, and if they visit the Masnodi Gadi, and attempt to collect rents, or to do any other acts, there will be a serious riot." 8. The Deputy Commissioner in his explanation confidently asserts that "the Petitioners have been treated quite legally and in a judicial spirit," and justifies his action by reference to sec. 114, Cr. P. C., which is in these terms : "If such person is not present in Court, the Magistrate shall issue a summons requiring him to appear, or, when such person is in custody, a warrant directing the officer in whose custody he is, to bring him before the Court; Provided that whenever it appears to such Magistrate upon the report of a police-officer or upon other information (the substance of which report or information shall be recorded by the Magistrate) that there is reason to fear the commission of a breach of the peace, and that such breach of the peace cannot the prevented otherwise than by the immediate arrest of such person, the Magistrate may at any time issue a warrant for his arrest. 9. The Deputy Commissioner says, "The section in its latter part empowers a Magistrate to effect an arrest on emergency : in its former part it empowers a Magistrate to remand to hajat. I acted under these powers which were evidently intended for the prevention of disturbances of the public peace." 10. Having regard to the terms of sec. 115 and to the fact that the Petitioners had already appeared and been admitted to bail, it may be doubted whether the proviso to sec. 114 applies to such a case as this. But conceding that the Deputy Commissioner had power to re-arrest, it is very clear that he was not authorised to send the Petitioners to hajat. He speaks of remanding them to hajat, as if they had come out of jail, which was not the case. 114 applies to such a case as this. But conceding that the Deputy Commissioner had power to re-arrest, it is very clear that he was not authorised to send the Petitioners to hajat. He speaks of remanding them to hajat, as if they had come out of jail, which was not the case. Manifestly the Deputy Commissioner has misapplied the section which cannot possibly have the meaning he now seeks to give it. Only in the special circumstances referred to in cls. (3) and (4) of sec. 167, and which are admittedly not applicable here, does the law empower a Magistrate to detain the person in custody until the completion of the enquiry. Sec. 496 of the Code is imperative, and under its provision the Deputy Commissioner was bound to release the Petitioners on bail or recognizances. We make no order upon the application for transfer as presumably the Deputy Commissioner does not intend to try the case himself.