JUDGMENT : C. P. Sinha, J. This application in revision by Praveen Kumar seeks to challenge the legality of the ORDER :dated 22.2.1972 of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Patna releasing him on a bail bond of Rs. 2000/- with two sureties of the like amount each. Under this very ORDER :the Magistrate also directed the recall of the warrant of arrest that had been issued against him earlier, in view of his appearance in court: 2. As it appears, the local police sent a report dated 22.1.1972 to the Sub-divisional Magistrate for action under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) against the members of both parties on the facts stated therein. The petitioner was one of the five persons in the second party. Learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, on being satisfied about the necessity of the action under Section 107 of the Code against the two sides, by her ORDER :dated 29.1.1972 drew up proceeding under Section 107 of the Code against them and called upon them to show cause by 15.2.1972 against their furnishing security bonds to keep peace for one year. On the date fixed, i. e., 15.2.1972 all the parties, except this petitioner, appeared and prayed for time for filing their show cause which was allowed. As this petitioner was absent, the Magistrate issued bailable warrant of arrest against him and adjourned the case to 22.2.1972. On this day, like other parties, this petitioner also appeared and prayed for recall of the warrant and also for time to file show cause. The Magistrate recalled the warrant and directed him to execute a bail bond of Rs. 2000/- with two sureties of the like amount each. It is against this ORDER :of the Magistrate regarding execution of bail bond that he has filed this revision. 3. Mr. Shok Haran Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, has assailed the impugned ORDER :on the ground that the Magistrate had no power to call upon him to execute a bail bond in this 107 proceeding because bail bonds are taken from accused persons whereas he could not be treated as an accused in a case. 4. It is not disputed that the petitioner consequent upon the above ORDER :dated 22.2.1972 executed the bail bond which was accepted by the court resulting in his release. A copy of this bail bond is available on the record. 4. It is not disputed that the petitioner consequent upon the above ORDER :dated 22.2.1972 executed the bail bond which was accepted by the court resulting in his release. A copy of this bail bond is available on the record. It is in the prescribed Form No. XLII of Schedule V of the Code. It has been executed by the petitioner as also his two sureties. Under it the petitioner has bound himself to be present in court on every date fixed in the case. Similar is the undertaking under this bond by his two sureties. In other words, the whole bond has been executed to ensure the attendance of the petitioner in court on the dates fixed in the proceeding and in default thereof the petitioner as well as his sureties have agreed to forfeit a sum of Rs. 2000/- to the State. 5. That a Magistrate is entitled to take bail bond from the person proceeded against under Section 107 of the Code is settled in the Bench decision dated 10th May, 1965 in (J) Criminal Revision No. 241 of 1962 of this Court ,(probably unreported). In that case the petitioner, who had been called upon to give bail bond of Rs. 1000/- was one of the second party to a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code. On the date fixed to show cause against executing bond of specified amount for specified period to keep peace when the petitioner appeared in court the Magistrate ORDER :ed him to give bail bond, as above, and adjourned the case to another date. The propriety of that ORDER :directing him to furnish .bail bond was first challenged before the Sessions Judge who was requested to make a reference to this Court for quashing of that ORDER :, and on his refusal to do so, the petitioner came to this Court in the above (1) Criminal Revision No. 241 of 1962. The various contentions raised on his behalf to show that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to direct him to give bail bond were negatived by the learned Judges constituting the Bench in their ORDER :and the revision was dismissed. 6. Respectfully relying upon the above Bench decision of this Court, I am unable to find any merit in this revisional application and it must, therefore, fail. 6. Respectfully relying upon the above Bench decision of this Court, I am unable to find any merit in this revisional application and it must, therefore, fail. On this authority it cannot be said that the Magistrate's ORDER :in question calling upon the petitioner to furnish bail bond, which he actually furnished on that very day, suffers from any il1egality. In the result, this application is dismissed. Application dismissed.