JUDGMENT:- Rule. Learned A.P.P. waives service. On the last two dates, I have extensively heard the submissions made by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner and the learned Associate Advocate General.

2. By this Petition under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, the Petitioner has challenged the final bond dated 18th April, 2006 taken by the second Respondent from the Petitioner under Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the said Code). It will be necessary to refer to the facts of the case. The second respondent issued a show cause notice dated 24th March, 2006 to the Petitioner calling upon the Petitioner to show cause as to why a bond of Rs.10,000/- for good behaviour should not be taken from the Petitioner. By the said show cause notice, the date of hearing was fixed as 31st March, 2006. It is stated in the Petition that by exercising power under section 41(2) of the said Code, on 24th March, 2006 the Petitioner and his family members were arrested and were produced before the second Respondent. At that time, they were served with the said show cause notice. The second Respondent released the Petitioner and was granted time to provide for bail pending the hearing of the proceedings. On 7th April, 2006, the Petitioner produced surety before the second Respondent. He was made to sign several papers which were signed by the Assistant of the second Respondent. According to the Petitioner, the next date given was 18th April, 2006. On that day, he was informed that the proceedings have been decided. His allegation is that interim and final bond were allegedly got executed from him.

3. The submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the second Respondent has acted completely contrary to the provisions of the said Code and he has not at all abided by the decision of this Court in case of Vasant Kumar Jivrambhai Majithia Vs. State of Maharashtra and another [2005 ALL MR (Cri) 2951]. He submitted that the second Respondent has not at all considered the decision of this Court in case of Surendra Ramchandra Taori V s. State of Maharashtra and others [2001(4) Mh.L.J. page 601: 2001 ALL MR (Cri) 2079].

4. The learned Associate Advocate General has produced a file of the proceedings for my perusal. He has also invited my attention to the circular dated 28th April, 2003 issued by the Home Ministry as well as further circular issued on 3rd September, 2005. He relied upon the circular dated 4th January, 2006 issued by the Home Department in the light of the decision of this Court in case of Vasant Kumar Majithia [2005 ALL MR (Cri) 2951] (supra). He submitted that the Officers who are exercising the powers under the said Chapter of the Code are scrupulously following the provisions of law.

5. In the present case, action has been purportedly taken under section 110(a)(g) of the said Code. It will be necessary to refer to paragraph 9 of the said decision in case of Vasant Kumar [2005 ALL MR (Cri) 2951] (supra) which reads thus:

"9. The power under section 107 can be exercised when the Special Executive Magistrate receives an information that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of peace or disturb the public tranquility. The said section further provides that if the Executive magistrate is of the opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he may in the manner provided in the Code require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond (with or without sureties) for keeping peace for such period, not exceeding one year, as the Magistrate deems fit. Section 111 of the said Code mandates that when a Magistrate acting under section 107 deems it necessary to require any person to show cause, he shall make an order in writing setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond to be executed, the term

Click Here to Read the rest of this document