JUDGMENT M.M. Husain, J. - The straight question agitated in this petition u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure is whether or not a Magistrate proceeding against a party u/s 107 Code of Criminal Procedure can call upon that party to furnish personal and surety bonds for appearance in Court as and when required for the purposes of the inquiry contemplated by Section 116 Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. It is not disputed that on the basis of a Chalani report, dated April 10, 1980 submitted by Haidersanj police in the district of Faizabad against the Petitioners, the S. D. M. Bikapur issued summons to the Petitioners u/s 113 Code of Criminal Procedure. When they put in appearance on May 16, 1980 the learned S. D. M. directed each of them to file personal bonds of Rs. 2,000 and two sureties each of the same amount. These bonds were demanded in order to ensure presence of the Petitioners in Court as and when required for the purposes of the case. The Petitioners were not in a position to immediately furnish the required bonds One day's time was therefore granted to them to file the required bonds. 3. In this petition u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that the Magistrate concerned had no jurisdiction to call upon the Petitioners to furnish bonds for appearance in Court, and the impugned order requiring the Petitioners to file the said bonds being without jurisdiction has resulted in an abuse of the process of Court. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I find force in this contention. Section 107 Code of Criminal Procedure is, from its very nature, preventive and not punitive. It is not intended for the punishment of past offences. Its sole object is to prevent acts which may amount to or lead to a breach of peace in future. As the matter affects the liberty of the subject who has not been found guilty of an offence, it is but necessary that the power conferred upon a Magistrate by the said provision of law is exercised strictly within its four corners. As the matter affects the liberty of the subject who has not been found guilty of an offence, it is but necessary that the power conferred upon a Magistrate by the said provision of law is exercised strictly within its four corners. Section 107 Code of Criminal Procedure lays down that when an Executive Magistrate receives information that any person is likely to commit a breach of peace, or disturb public tranquility, or do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility and is of the opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he may, in the manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for keeping the peace for such period not exceeding one year as the Magistrate thinks lit. 4. Section 111 Code of Criminal Procedure lays down that when a Magistrate acts u/s 107 Code of Criminal Procedure he shall pass a written order u/s 111 Code of Criminal Procedure setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the bonds to be executed, the terras for which it is to be enforced and the number, character and class of sureties (if any) required. 5. Section 112 Code of Criminal Procedure lays down that if the person in respect of whom an order u/s 111 Code of Criminal Procedure is made, is present in Court it shall be read over to him, or if he so desires, the substance thereof shall be explained to him. 6. Section 113 Code of Criminal Procedure prescribes that if such person is not present in Court, the Magistrate shall issue a summon requiring him to appear, or, when such person is in custody, a warrant directing the officer, in whose custody he is, to bring before the Court. 7. Section 114 Code of Criminal Procedure lays down that a summons issued u/s 113 Code of Criminal Procedure shall be accompanied by an order passed u/s 111 Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. Section 115 of the Code empowers the Magistrate to dispense with the personal attendance of the required person and Section 116 Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the inquiry into the matter. 8. Section 115 of the Code empowers the Magistrate to dispense with the personal attendance of the required person and Section 116 Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the inquiry into the matter. Sub-section (1) of that section lays down that when the person concerned is brought before the Court, the Magistrate shall proceed to enquire into the truth of information upon which action has been taken and will take such further evidence as may appear necessary. Sub-section (2) of Section 116 Code of Criminal Procedure lays down that procedure of the inquiry contemplated by Sub-section (1) shall be the same which has been prescribed by the Code for conducting trial and recording evidence in summons case. Sub-section (3) of Section 116 Code of Criminal Procedure lays down that if, after commencement and before the completion of the inquiry under Sub-section (1), the Magistrate considers that immediate measures are necessary for the prevention of breach of peace or disturbance of public tranquility etc., the Magistrate for reasons to be recorded in writing, shall direct the person concerned to execute a bond with or without sureties for keeping the peace or maintaining good behaviour till the conclusion of the inquiry. These bonds are obviously for ensuring the maintenance of public tranquility and not for ensuring attendance of the person concerned in the Court of the Magistrate during the course of the inquiry. 9. There is thus nothing in the provisions of Chapter VIII of the Code dealing with proceedings u/s 107 Code of Criminal Procedure which may authorise Magistrate to call upon the person concerned to file bonds for appearing in Court as and when required by that Court. 10. In Madhu Limaye Vs. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Monghyr and Others, AIR 1971 SC 2486 , it has been laid down that: ...the inquiry u/s 117 Code of Criminal Procedure (old) corresponding to Section 116 Code of Criminal Procedure (new) is to ascertain the truth of the necessary information. Sub-section (1) contemplates an immediate inquiry into the truth of the information. It is pending the completion of the inquriy that an interim bond can be asked for if immediate measures are necessary, and in default it is necessary to put the person in custody. Sub-section (1) contemplates an immediate inquiry into the truth of the information. It is pending the completion of the inquriy that an interim bond can be asked for if immediate measures are necessary, and in default it is necessary to put the person in custody. If the Magistrate makes no effort to enquire into the truth of the allegations and adjourns the case say from day to day and yet asks for an interim bond places him in custody for default it becomes entirely one sided. It would be moving too far away from the guarantee of freedom if the view is permitted that without any inquiry into the truth of the information sufficient to make out a prima facie case a person is to be put in jeopardy of detention. While making that observation the view of a Division Bench of this Court in Vasudeo Ojha v. State of U.P. 1958 AWR 101 , wherein it was laid down that u/s 91 Code of Criminal Procedure (old) the Magistrate could commit a person to jail custody for refusing to furnish sureties, was disapproved and it was specifically laid down by the Supreme Court that: Apart from the fact that Section 55 Code of Criminal Procedure (old) deals with special cases of arrest and cannot be made applicable. Section 107 itself speaks that the procedure of Chapter VIII that is to say, the procedure prescribed in Sections 112, 113 and 114 should be followed. Similarly Section 91 may be available till the order u/s 112 is drawn up. After it is drawn up the Magistrate has to act under Sections 113 and 117(1). Section 91 therefore has no room. Thus the order passed by the learned Magistrate in the present case cannot be said to be justified u/s 88 Code of Criminal Procedure (new) which corresponds to Section 91 of the old Code. 11. The impugned order dated 16-5-1980 was obviously not passed by the learned Magistrate u/s 117(3) Code of Criminal Procedure because it was passed prior to the commencement of the inquiry u/s 116(1) of the Code, and it was not passed for maintenance of peace and public tranquility during the pendency of the proceedings. On the other hand, it was passed solely for the purpose of procuring the attendance of the Petitioners as and when required during the pendency of the inquiry. On the other hand, it was passed solely for the purpose of procuring the attendance of the Petitioners as and when required during the pendency of the inquiry. Since the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to that effect, the impugned order is wholly illegal. If it is given effect to and the Petitioners are called upon to execute the required bond in pursuance of the impugned order, it will obviously amount to an abuse of the process of Court. 12. I, therefore, allow this petition and set aside the impugned order, dated 16-5-1980 passed by the S. D. M. Bikapur in proceedings u/s 107 Code of Criminal Procedure wherein the Petitioners attendance is required. The Petitioners shall not furnish the required bonds, and if the same have already been furnished they shall stand cancelled and sureties discharged. It is, however, open to the learned Magistrate to pass an order requiring interim bonds to be furnished by the Petitioners u/s 116(3) Code of Criminal Procedure if the conditions laid down by that sub-section stand satisfied, and the Magistrate considers that immediate measures are necessary for preventing breach of peace or disturbance of public tranquility.