JUDGMENT : 1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Farrukhabad in which he recommends that an order of the Joint Magistrate of Farrukhabad, requiring three persons, Jagat Narain, Maharaj Narain and Sundur. Chand, to give security for keeping the peace, should be set aside. The circumstances in which the present proceedings were instituted are set out at length in the Magistrate's order. It is sufficient to say here that the parties concerned are Sadhs, a community which has a distinctive religion of its own and occupies an important position in Farrukhabad. There is an annual Bhandara or festival, which takes place on receipt of a firnan from Rohal in the Punjab. In consequence, it would appear, of the teachings of a reformer of the name of Dwarka Das, two parties have been formed in the community—the followers of Dwarka Das being in the minority. Jagat Narain and Maharaj Narain belong to the first or as they call themselves the orthodox party. Sundur Chand belongs to the 2nd party, the followers of Dwarka Das. The differences between the two parties appear to an outsider to be of trifling character, but the importance of them in the eyes of the Sadhs may be gauged by the fact that over them families are divided against themselves and it is said that Sadhs will not even salute each other when they belong to different parties. In February, 1909, the District Magistrate found it necessary to prohibit the Bhandara which was then about to take place. He considered the question of allowing the Bhandara to take place under police protection, and binding over the leaders on either side to keep the peace but he came to the conclusion that such a course would probably accentuate the difference between them. Here it may be explained that the position taken up by the ‘first’ party was that they should be allowed to hold the Bhandara without interference by the second party who were not to be admitted to it. The second party said that as the firman for the Bhandara had come from Rohal they were bound as a religious duty to attend the Bhandara, and that the first party should not be allowed to exclude them. The result was that no Bhandara took place in 1909. The second party said that as the firman for the Bhandara had come from Rohal they were bound as a religious duty to attend the Bhandara, and that the first party should not be allowed to exclude them. The result was that no Bhandara took place in 1909. This year no firman was applied for and no firman came, and there does not seem to have been any idea of holding the Bhandara—certainly not the Bhandara at the principal Chowki or Church’ in Farrukhabad. But early this year, Sri Kishan Das, an Honorary Magistrate, who belongs to the ‘first’ party, was assaulted in the street by four men, of whom three belonged to the second party. His assailants were brought to trial and convicted. After that, on March 28th, the Joint Magistrate called upon Jagat Narain, Maharaj Narain, Sundur Chand, and his brother, Sumer Chand, to show cause why they should not furnish security for keeping the peace for one year by executing bonds for Rs. 5000 each with two sureties apiece in Rs. 2500. Sumer Chand then left Farrukhabad and may be disregarded. One of the grounds upon which the learned Sessions Judge recommends that the proceedings of the Joint Magistrate should be set aside is, that it was irregular to take proceedings against the members of the opposing factions jointly. It is contended that separate proceedings should have been taken agai ns the members of each faction. It may, I think, be assumed that the proceedings were irregular, but as at present advised, I am not prepared to hold that the proceedings should be set aside on account of this irregularity. Neither side have been prejudiced in the least, degree by it. I need not, however, consider the question further, for I am, satisfied that the order of the Joint Magistrate should be set aside on other grounds. 2. Neither side have been prejudiced in the least, degree by it. I need not, however, consider the question further, for I am, satisfied that the order of the Joint Magistrate should be set aside on other grounds. 2. On behalf of the persons who have been bound over, it is urged that the only occasion on which it is at all likely that the members of the opposing factions would commit a breach of the peace, is the Bhandara, which is, not to take place this year that there is no evidence whatever that any one of these three persons is at all likely to commit a breach of the peace, and that they cannot be bound over merely because they are wealthy or prominent members of their parties. 3. On behalf of the Crown it is urged that the annual Bhandara is not the only occasion on which the two parties are likely to come to blows with each other, as witness the assault upon the Honorary Magistrate; that there is evidence that the persons who have been bound down have been going about the town armed with lathis, and that they are the leaders of the two factions and should, as such, be bound down. 4. It is a common, and I think a proper, practice to take security from the leaders of opposing factions that are shown to be likely to commit breaches of the peace. 5. It is very often impossible to bind over all the members of two or more parties. But before a person is bound over to keep the peace, it must be shown that he is himself to commit a breach of the peace or do a wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity. He cannot be bound down merely because he is a wealthy or influential member of his party. The police appreciating this difficulty set to work to prove that the three persons concerned had been going about with lathials and had been making preparations for a fight by importing lathis and in other ways. The story of the importing of lathis turned out to be a myth and the evidence that the three men had been preparing for a fight broke down completely. The story of the importing of lathis turned out to be a myth and the evidence that the three men had been preparing for a fight broke down completely. Maharaj Narain and Jagat Narain seem to have been selected because they are the son and nephew of the Honorary Magistrate who was attacked. The Honorary Magistrate has probably greater influence than they have in their party, but no proceedings have been taken against him. Sumer Chand and Sundur Chand seem to have been selected because they are men of means. The Kotwal, who probably knows as much about these people as any one in the town, said in the course of his evidence that there was no one in either party who by reason of his wealth or his following or his religious authority could control his party and that he had not seen any of the three persons going about with lathials. In his order the Joint Magistrate says that “the evidence for the defence is directed towards showing that the parties (i.e., the persons who have been bound down) have not been going about accompanied by lathiwalas. The evidence to this effect is given by a number of respectable witnesses and their word must be accepted. Yet the Magistrate was inclined to believe the statement of the Circle Inspector that he had seen people with lathis in the company of the three persons who have been bound over. The Sessions Judge has declined to accept the evidence of the Circle Inspector on this matter pointing out that if he saw what he described in his evidence it is strange that he took no action and did not even make a report about it. Having examined the evidence, I agree with the Sessions Judge that it is not proved that the three persons who have been bonnd over are likely to commit a breach of the peace themselves or that they are leaders of the two parties in the sense that they can control the other members of their respective parties. 6. I cannot accept the contention that the Bhandara is the only occasion on which the two factions are likely to fall out with each other. The evidence shows the contrary. 6. I cannot accept the contention that the Bhandara is the only occasion on which the two factions are likely to fall out with each other. The evidence shows the contrary. The controversy between them ranges over a wide field, and I certainly would not interfere with the Magistrate's order merely because there is no probability of a Bhandara being held in the near future. 7. But I do not think that any sufficient ground has been established for taking security from the three men who have been bound over. Two of them, Jagat Narain and Maharaj Narain, joined in an attempt to compromise the dispute last year but their own party declined to accept it. This shows that they have no real control over the party to which they belong and that they do not belong to the most bigotted section of that party. 8. The Magistrate's order is set aside. 9. Order set aside.