Judgment 1. The petitioners are the members of the Second party in a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure pending in the court of Sri D. K. Sahu, Magistrate, First Class, Muzaffarpur. They are aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate dated the 14th March, 1966 directing them to execute interim bond under Section 117(3) of the Code for keeping the peace during the pendency of the proceeding. 2. . The main ground upon which the order is assailed is that it has been recorded without taking any evidence in support of the allegations made against the petitioners about threatening or intimidating some of the witnesses of the First Party who were to come to Court for their evidence. It is true that no evidence was recorded in respect of those threats, but mention about them was made in petition dated the 2nd February, 1966 which the members of the First party had filed before the learned Magistrate. On receipt of that petition the learned Magistrate had called upon the petitioners to show cause as to why interim bond should not be taken from them. The petitioners showed cause, but they did not specifically deny the allegation of threat or intimidation to the witnesses of the First Party, as mentioned in the petition dated the 2nd February, 1966. 3. Sub-section (3) of Section 117 of the Code does not enjoin any particular form of enquiry to justify an order of interim bond in a pending proceeding. It is enough that there are some materials before the Magistrate from which he feels satisfied that some immediate measures are necessary for preventing breach of peace or disturbance of public tranquillity, or commission of any offence or for public safety. A definite allegation of threat or intimidation to witnesses, who were to depose in court had been made against the petitioners and that was not denied on their behalf. Under such circumstances it was hardly necessary for the learned Magistrate to hold any enquiry into the allegations before deciding to pass an order of interim bond under Section 117(3). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners next contended in respect of the allegation contained in the petition dated the 2nd February, 1966, there should have been an independent proceeding. In my opinion, there is no force in this contention. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners next contended in respect of the allegation contained in the petition dated the 2nd February, 1966, there should have been an independent proceeding. In my opinion, there is no force in this contention. The apprehension contained in the petition dated the 2nd February, 1966 was in respect of witnesses deposing in the present proceeding. Therefore, this was undoubtedly a fit case for action under S. 117(3) so that the enquiry in the proceeding could be concluded in a peaceful atmosphere. 5. In my opinion, there is no merit in this application and it is, accordingly, dismissed, but I direct that the proceeding under Section 107 must be concluded without further delay.