JUDGMENT Shambhu Prasad Singh, J. This application by ten members of the second party to a proceeding under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') is directed against an order of the Magistrate directing them to execute ad interim bonds of Rs. 1,000/- each under section 117(3) of the Code. 2. Mr. B. P. Samaiyar, appearing for the petitioners, has urged, in the first place, that all the members of the second party were neither present in Court not were they brought before the Magistrate incompliance with or in execution of summons or warrant issued under section 114 of the Code, and, therefore, the Magistrate could not proceed to make an inquiry under section 117(1) of the Code; and that, so long as the inquiry envisaged by section 117(1) did not take place, no order under section 117(3) of the Code could be passed. The contention appears to be a misconceived one Section 117(1) does not contemplate that the enquiry under that section must be against all the persons against whom an order under section 112 has been passed. There may be cases in which it may not be necessary to order for execution of interim bonds by all such persons; only some of them may be asked to execute an interim bonds, if their conduct justifies such an order. True it is that in the instant case the Magistrate has passed the order for execution of interim bonds even against those members of the second party who were not present in court and not appeared in the proceeding so far. But those members of the second party have not made any grievance against that order. The petitioners were present before the Magistrate. They cannot make a grievance on this score. The petition cannot, therefore, succeed on this ground. 3. Mr. But those members of the second party have not made any grievance against that order. The petitioners were present before the Magistrate. They cannot make a grievance on this score. The petition cannot, therefore, succeed on this ground. 3. Mr. Samaiyar has then urged that neither in the impugned order nor in the order dated the 25th July, 1972, by which the member of the second party were asked to show cause as to why they should not execute ad-interim bonds under section 117 (3) of the Code the Magistrate recorded a finding that, in his opinion, immediate measures were necessary for the prevention of a breach of the peace or disturbance of the public tranquility of the commission of any offence or for order the public safety, and that, unless the Magistrate recorded such a finding, no order for execution of interim bonds under section 117 (3) of the Code could be passed. In absence of such a finding, the impugned order is vitiated. The application is, accordingly, allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Application allowed.