JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - The second party in a proceeding u/s 107, Code of Criminal Procedure is the Petitioner. He is aggrieved by the Order 9-7-1971 made by the learned Magistrate u/s 117(3) Code of Criminal Procedure directing him to furnish an interim bond. In fact by the very notice in the proceeding the learned Magistrate caned upon him to show cause as to why he may not be required to furnish an interim bond under the aforesaid provision for Rs. 500/- with one surety. The notice was dated 31-5-1971. The second party showed cause on 2-7-1971. The case was heard on 6-7-1971 and the impugned order was made on 9-7-1971. The enquiry of the main matter admittedly had not begun by the time the order for the interim bond was made. Reliance is placed on the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye v. S.D.M. Monghyr AIR 1972 S.C. 2486. In the said case it was clearly indicated that until some evidence was brought on record in course of an enquiry an order for an interim bond was not contemplated. Their Lordships further observed that the enquiry under the section is to ascertain the truth of the necessary information. It is pending the completion of the inquiry that an interim bond can be asked for if immediate measures are necessary and in default to put the person in custody. If the magistrate makes no effort to enquire into the truth of the allegation and adjourns the case from day to day and yet asks for an interim bond the case becomes entirely one sided. What was necessary was that there should have been an enquiry into the truth of the information sufficient to make out a prima facie case against the person so that in default of furnishing an interim bond he could be put in jeopardy of detention. 2. Admittedly in this case no evidence has been taken. Mr. Moharana for the opposite party relied upon an affidavit said to have been filed on 5.6-1971 before the learned Magistrate. There is no mention of this affidavit in the order-sheet though the lower Court records contain the affidavit. The learned Magistrate has not relied on the allegations in the affidavit either. Mr. Moharana. placed reliance upon 8 later decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Govinder Singh Verma and Another Vs. There is no mention of this affidavit in the order-sheet though the lower Court records contain the affidavit. The learned Magistrate has not relied on the allegations in the affidavit either. Mr. Moharana. placed reliance upon 8 later decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Govinder Singh Verma and Another Vs. Mrs. Bachubhai T. Pestonji and Another. In paragraph 7 of this judgment it has been said. It was next said on behalf of the Appellants that even u/s 117(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure interim bonds can be directed only if there is a case u/s 108 or Section 109 or Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was submitted that in a case u/s 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Court could not direct interim bonds. The contention is unsound. The proviso to Section 117(3) speaks of cases u/s 108 or Section 109 or Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In proceedings under those sections bond for maintaining good behavior can be asked for...Section 117(3) of the Code of Criminal procedure confers power on the Magistrate to direct person in respect of whom order u/s 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been made to execute a bond for keeping the peace. The Respondent lodged a complaint u/s 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Magistrate examined the Appellants and the Sub-Inspector. The Magistrate has also passed an order u/s 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requiring each of the Appellants to show cause why he should not be asked to furnish a surety and a personal bond for maintaining the peace. Thus in the second case there was already evidence on record as required by their Lordships in Madhu Limaye's case. In the present case, however, there was no enquiry and opportunity was not given to test the material upon which the learned Magistrate placed reliance for making an order for interim bond. The procedure followed in the present case is contrary to what has been laid down in Madhu Limaye's case. I would accordingly vacate the order of the learned Magistrate. The revision is allowed. I would, however, make it clear that if the learned Magistrate, after making an appraisal of the present position, still finds that there is need for an interim order he may make an enquiry and pass suitable directions. I would accordingly vacate the order of the learned Magistrate. The revision is allowed. I would, however, make it clear that if the learned Magistrate, after making an appraisal of the present position, still finds that there is need for an interim order he may make an enquiry and pass suitable directions. As more than nine months have passed since the proceeding u/s 107, Code of Criminal Procedure began, it is proper that the main proceeding should be closed without delay.