JUDGMENT Kamlesh Sharma, J.—By this petition under section 482 Cr. P. C, the petitioner Sh. Jagat Ram, has prayed for quashing of the proceedings under section 109 Cr. P. C. initiated against him by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ghumarwin, vide his order dated 27-7-1990. 2. The facts stated in the petition are that the petitioner is a resident of village Ghatasu, Tehsil Jubbal, District Shimla. He is an agriculturist. In July, 1990, he bad gone to Nadaun to visit his wife, Smt Brinda, who was a typist in the office of the Block Development Officer, Nadaun. On 6-7-1990, he was travelling in a bus to come to Shimla. According to him, the Station House Officer, Nadaun, was also travelling that bus. On seeing the petitioner, he started making queries from him that why Delhi Police is after the petitioner and on this there was a tiff between them. Thereafter, the Station House Officer, Nadaun got the petitioner arrested by the Police of Police-Station, Bharari. 3. On the other hand, in the reply, filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that on seeing the Station House Officer, Nadaun, in uniform, the petitioner tried to get down from the bus at Ladror. It is admitted that he was arrested by the Police at Police-Station, Bharari but a different version has been given for his arrest. According to the respondents, the petitioner who was carrying a hand-bag tried to conceal himself behind the bus on seeing the Police present at Bharari bus-stand. At this, the Police became suspicious and asked the petitioner his name and address which he gave wrongly as Jagan Nath resident of village Nadaun. The Station House Officer, Police Station Nadaun, informed the Police that on seeing him the petitioner had earlier tried to alight from the bus at Ladror. On further asking the petitioner did disclose his correct identity. From this, it was presumed that the petitioner had alighted from the bus at Bus-stand, Bharari, and concealed his presence in order to commit burglary. 4. It has further been alleged in the reply that as per information received from Delhi Police, the petitioner is a professional burglar and has been arrested by them 24 times. From this, it was presumed that the petitioner had alighted from the bus at Bus-stand, Bharari, and concealed his presence in order to commit burglary. 4. It has further been alleged in the reply that as per information received from Delhi Police, the petitioner is a professional burglar and has been arrested by them 24 times. He has also been declared a proclaimed offender in case F. I. R. No. 126 of 1989 under sections 454/380 IPC by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House, New Delhi He has been declared as a bad character by the Delhi Police. It is further stated that as per information received from the Station House Officer, Police Station Jubbal, he is wanted by Delhi Police in FIR No. 116 of 1990 under sections 454 and 380 IPC. He has already been convicted in another case FIR No. 232 of 196 under sections 454 and 380 IPC by the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. On search, the Police of Police-Station, Bharari, had recovered three bunches of keys from the petitioner. Section 109 Cr. P. C. reads as under : "Security for good behaviour from suspected persons.—When a Judicial Magistrate of the first class receives information that there is within his local jurisdiction a person taking precautions to conceal his presence and that there is reason to believe that he is doing so with a view to committing a cognizable offence, the Magistrate, 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 his good behaviour for such period, not exceeding one year, as the Magistrate thinks fit." 5. A mere reading of this section makes it clear that in order to initiate proceedings under section 109 Gr. P. C, two conditions precedent must co-exist. These are :— (i) the person concerned must be taking precautions to conceal his presence ; (ii) there is reason to believe that such person is taking such precautions with a view to committing offence. If one of these pre-requisites is absent, no action can be taken under section 109 Cr. P. C. 6. The next question which arises is, what do the words "conceal his presence" mean. In Ganga Ram v The State, AIR 1956 HP 43, the then Judicial Commissioner, Sh. If one of these pre-requisites is absent, no action can be taken under section 109 Cr. P. C. 6. The next question which arises is, what do the words "conceal his presence" mean. In Ganga Ram v The State, AIR 1956 HP 43, the then Judicial Commissioner, Sh. Ramabbadran, has given meaning to these words as "concealment of person and not of identity and held that it is ridiculous to suggest that the accused in that case tried to conceal himself in broad day light and at bazar where other persons were also present. 7. I am in respectful disagreement with this meaning. The word "presence" cannot mean only physical and bodily presence. When a person tries to impersonate another person, he, undoubtedly, conceals his own identity and tries to make the people believe that he is some other person. Therefore, by concealing his identity, he is certainly concealing his presence as well But such pseudonym or disguise is require to be with a purpose of commission of offence in contemplation. Therefore, the test is whether the bodily and physical concealment or of identity is for some purpose directly connected with the intended offence. Mere concealment would not amount to "concealment of presence" within the meaning of this section. 8. For holding this view, I am supported by AIR 1950 All 184, Sheetal Baksh Singh and others v. Rex ; AIR 1934 All 45, Kashi Nath v. Emperor, 1960 Cri LJ 386, Prahlad Sahni and another v. The State and 1969 Cri LJ 1139, Samad Bhat v. State. 9. In so far as the present case is concerned assuming that the allegations made by the respondents that the petitioner got down at Ladror, concealed himself behind the bus at Bus-stand, Bharari and gave wrong name and address on the asking of the Police are correct, for initiating proceedings under section 109, Cr. P. C. against him, there should be some material that these complained of actions of the petitioner had any connection with his intention to committing a cognizable offence. Even if he is established burglar or thief, it is not enough. P. C. against him, there should be some material that these complained of actions of the petitioner had any connection with his intention to committing a cognizable offence. Even if he is established burglar or thief, it is not enough. A perusal of the order dated 27-7-1990 of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ghumarwin, shows that there was no material on record before him to suggest that the alleged concealment and impersonation by the petitioner was done to facilitate himself in the commission of theft, burglary or any other offence which he was contemplating at the relevant time. If he was required by (he Delhi Police in many cases, as stated by Sh Harbans Singh, Police Officer present before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ghumarwin, he could be arrested by the Police otherwise and it was not necessary to procure his presence by initiating proceedings under section 109, Cr P. C. against him If the petitioner got down at Ladror or hid himself behind the bus at Bus-stand, Bharari, or gave his wrong name and address to avoid his identification and arrest by the Police, no proceedings under section 109, Cr. P. C. could be initiated against him. Above all, it cannot be believed that the petitioner could conceal his physical presence in broad day light by alighting from the bus at Ladroror by hiding himself behind the bus at Bbarari. Mere giving out a false name and address to conceal ones identity, is also not culpable under section 109, Cr. P. C, unless it is with intention to committing a cognizable offence. Though it is not mentioned in the order that three bunches of keys were recovered from the petitioner by the Bharari Police as has been stated in the reply only, yet carrying three bunches of keys in broad day light while travelling in a bus, cannot suggest that the petitioner was contemplating to commit burglary or theft while he alighted from the bus at Bharari. 10. Therefore, in my opinion, there was no occasion for the Bharari Police to arrest the petitioner and for the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ghumarwin, to initiate proceedings against the petitioner under section 109, Cr. P. C. If the impugned order dated 27-7-1990 is allowed to continue, it will be abuse of the process of the Court and will defeat the ends of justice. In the result the petition succeeds. P. C. If the impugned order dated 27-7-1990 is allowed to continue, it will be abuse of the process of the Court and will defeat the ends of justice. In the result the petition succeeds. The order dated 27-7-1990 of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bbarari, is set aside and the proceedings under section 109, Cr. P. C. initiated against the petitioner are quashed. Petition allowed.