JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner is proceeded under Section 107 of the code of Criminal Procedure {for short “the Code”} by the Sub divisional Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram, on a report field by the sub Inspector of police, Vizhinjam. In response to the summons issued by the magistrate petitioner Appeared before him. He was directed to execute a bond with sureties for keeping the peace till Conclusion of the enquiry. Petitioner complied with that order . Enquiry in the proceedings commenced by the magistrate awaits completion. Pending enquiry, a report was filed by the Sub Inspector of police. Vizhinjam Police station before the magistrate stating that the petitioner after commencement of the proceedings has involved in some criminal activities and against him three crimes have been registered for grave offences under the Indian Penal Code {for short “the IPC”}. Learned magistrate acting upon that report issued a warrant for the arrest of the petitioner cancelling the bond already executed by him. Annexure D is a copy of the warrant issued by the magistrate. Annexure C is a photo copy of the endorsements made by the magistrate where under he has cancelled the bond previously executed by the petitioner. Challenge in the petition is against the cancellation of the bond and also issue of warrant by the magistrate invoking the inherent powers of this court under Section 482 of the Code, to annul such orders. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned Public Prosecutor. 3. Going through the endorsements covered by Annexure C, it appears, the learned magistrate has proceeded against the petitioner as if he is facing trial as an accused for penal offences. What is covered by the proceedings is only exercise of preventive jurisdiction to consider whether security is to be taken from a person from whom threat to peace or disturbance to public tranquility is apprehended. In such a case, the person proceeded with cannot be treated as an accused tried for a penal offence. Leaving that question, it has to be pointed out that in a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code, on appearance of the party, whether it be in response to a summons or warrant issued, question of his furnishing any security depends upon the nature of the materials tendered in such proceedings and the satisfaction arrived there of by the magistrate. Pending enquiry, after its commencement, if the magistrate considers that immediate measures are necessary for the prevention of a breach of the peace or disturbance to public tranquility or commission of any offence or for the public safety, after recording the reasons in writing, he may insist from the person proceeded, to execute a bond with or without sureties for keeping the peace till the completion of the enquiry. Till such bond is executed or in default of its execution, until the enquiry is concluded, the person proceeded may be detained. 4. In the present case, petitioner has already executed the bond ordered by the magistrate. He has flouted the bond executed indulging in criminal activities and, thus. Impaired the peace and disturbed public tranquility, is the complaint leveled by the Sub Inspector of police, filing a subsequent report before the magistrate. Immediately, the magistrate cancelled the bond and issued warrant for his arrest. 5. Annexure C is copy of the order sheet in the proceedings. What is seen from that document is that soon after the filing of the report by the police imputing breach of bond by the person proceeded against (petitioner) alleging his involvement in three criminal cases, the learned magistrate cancelled the security bond directing issue of warrant to the petitioner and to summon the sureties. The order dated 11-09-2012 by the magistrate on receipt of the report of the police reads thus: “police reported that the accused violated conditions of the security bond and engaged in criminal activities and three crime cases were initiated. S.H.O recommended to cancel the security bond. I here by cancelled (sic cancel) the security bond forth with. (1) issue warrant to C.P (2) summon the sureties”. 6. Other than making a reference to the report field by the police and the recommendation made. The aforesaid order does not reflect application of mind by the magistrate or his satisfaction to cancel the bond (sic forfeit) and for taking drastic steps against the executant of the bond – petitioner. Execution of a bond from the proceeded against before the completion of the enquiry for prevention of breach of the peace or disturbance of the public tranquility or the commission of any offence or for the public safety. Execution of a bond from the proceeded against before the completion of the enquiry for prevention of breach of the peace or disturbance of the public tranquility or the commission of any offence or for the public safety. as the case may be, can be ordered by the magistrate only on recording in writing the reasons to insist for such a bond from him. Insistence for such statutory mandate is spelt out by sub-section(3) of Section 116 of the Code. Where there is a breach of such bond by the executant, pending the enquiry. What steps can be taken have not been stated. When that be so, the same procedure that is to be followed when there is a breach of bond executed after compliance of the order passed in completion of the proceedings requires to be followed. Section 122 deals with the steps to be taken when a bond executed as aforesaid is violated. Sub-section (1) (b) of that Section spells out that proof of the violation of the conditions of the bond and recording by the magistrate the grounds of such proof is necessary to order that the executant of the bond which is violated be arrested and detained in prison. Section 122(1) (b) reads thus:- “122. Imprisonment in default of security: (1)(a) **** **** *** (b) If any person after having executed a bond with or without sureties for keeping the peace in pursuance of an order of a magistrate under section 117 is proved, to the satisfaction of such magistrate or his successor in office, to have committed breach of the bond, order that the person be arrested and detained in person until the expiry of the period of the bond and such order shall be without prejudice to any of the punishment or forfeiture to which the said person may be liable in accordance with law”. So much so, when the violation or breach of the bond has to be proved to the satisfaction of the magistrate and, further, he has to record the grounds of such proof, to order the arrest of the executant of the bond and his detention in prison the endorsement made in Annexure C order by the magistrate referring to the report and recommendation of the police to issue warrant against the petitioner - the executant of the bond-does not satisfy the statutory mandate. In such circumstanced, the orders passed by the magistrate canceling (sic forfeiting) the bond of the petitioner and warrant issued against him are liable to be set aside, and I do so. 7. Sub Divisional Magistrate will take note of the observations made above and take appropriate proceedings over the report filed by the Sub Inspector of Police on the question of forfeiture of bond, and other steps as may be called for, if so satisfied, against the petitioner. I make it clear that revoking the order cancelling (forfeiting) the bond of petitioner and also the warrant issued against him, will not stand in the way of the magistrate in passing appropriate orders thereof, in accordance with law. Subject to the observations made above setting aside the order cancelling the bond and also the warrant issued against the petitioner, petition is disposed of. `