Horwill, J.

1. The petitioners have been bound over Under Section 110(e) and (f), Criminal P.C. for habitually committing offences involving a breach of peace, to wit, attempts to rape, and they have also been deemed, by virtue of this habitual practice, to be desperate and dangerous members of a community, whom it is not safe to leave at large without furnishing security. This order was confirmed on appeal by the learned Sessions Judge of Bellary. It has been contended for the petitioners that attempts of rape do not involve a breach of the peace, that they are not desperate and dangerous to the community, and that it was illegal to try the three petitioners together. The principal case quoted before me from which it was sought to deduce that an attempt to commit rape does not involve a breach of the peace is Arun Samanta v. Emperor (1903) 30 Cal 366 In that case, the counter-petitioners were found to have been attempting to seduce women and of behaving obscenely towards them. It was rightly pointed out that before a person could be bound over Under Section 110 (e) he must be found to have committed offences of which a breach of the peace was a necessary constituent. Reference