JUDGMENT 1. The present rule has been issued on an application made by the two Petitioners, Alep Pramanik and Tamiz Sheikh, who have been ordered under sec. 110, (Jr. P. C., to execute a bond for Rs. 300, with two sureties of Rs. 300 each, to be of good behaviour for one year. The rule has been issued to show cause why the order should not be set aside. In the application certain facts have been stated which have not been denied in the explanation which has been received from the District Magistrate, and they would seem to indicate that grave irregularities, in connection at least with the Petitioner Alep, have been committed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Tangail. 2. It is stated that on the 23rd of June 1905, Alep was arrested on a charge of dacoity and that he was kept in jail without any evidence being recorded against him or any steps taken to bring him to trial, up to the 2nd of March 1906, that is to say, for about nine months, and that he was only released because the Sessions Judge happened to visit the jail as a visitor and brought the facts to the notice of the District Magistrate. 3. It is not clear what steps have been taken to prevent the recurrence of similar detentions in future, but we feel bound to say that the Sub-Divisional 4. Officer, in allowing the Petitioner to remain in jail for nearly nine months in the manner stated, has certainly laid himself open to very serious criticism. 5. It seems that the prisoner, Alep, shortly after his release, was brought up for trial on a charge under sec. 412, and that after full enquiry had been made he was discharged by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Tangail on the 11th May 1906. 6. The present proceedings were instituted on the 11th of May, the day on which he was discharged. And he appears to have been kept in custody ever since until the order under sec. 110, C. P. C., was passed on the 23rd of June 1906. 7. The other Petitioner, Tamiz, was arrested on a charge under secs. 457and 380, and convicted on the 19th of March under sec. 380, I. P. C., by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. But on the 12th of April 1906, the conviction and sentence were set aside and the accused was discharged. 7. The other Petitioner, Tamiz, was arrested on a charge under secs. 457and 380, and convicted on the 19th of March under sec. 380, I. P. C., by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. But on the 12th of April 1906, the conviction and sentence were set aside and the accused was discharged. 8. On the 22nd May 1906, the present proceedings under sec. 110, C. P. C., were taken against Tamiz, and the proceedings against Tamiz and Alep seem since then to have been carried on against them jointly. 9. The Magistrate, in passing the order, has recorded a judgment which, in our opinion, is very far from satisfactory. He merely gives the number of witnesses examined, but states no facts whatever which would tend to show that either or both of the two accused were habitual thieves and dacoits. 10. We have referred to the evidence on which the order has been passed, and we can only say that, in our opinion, it is as unsatisfactory as the judgment which has been recorded by the Magistrate. Beyond statements, that the witnesses suspect or are under the impression that the two persons are thieves and dacoits, no single fact is mentioned by am of them which would go to indicate that there was any sufficient reason for their suspicions or impressions. In our opinion, the evidence is perfectly worthless as proving that these two men were habitual thieves and dacoits. These proceedings have in fact been taken to bind these persons down on an indefinite charge, after the prosecution in the two cases had failed to prove any definite charge against them. We consider that the proceedings against these two men under sec. 110, C. P. C,, should never have been taken and that the evidence which has been adduced to support the order and the order itself are unsatisfactory and cannot be supported. We therefore make the rule absolute and set aside the order passed under sec. 110, Cr. P. C., against both the accused. The Petitioners will be at once released from jail and set at liberty.