Shinde, J.

1. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that on 20th August, 2005, there was quarrel between the petitioners and one Chhotu Hasan Gowli and another person by name Shaikh Kasam Hasan Gowli near Mamaji Talkies in Bhusawal. The petitioners went to Police Station for lodging complaint against the said persons. However, the Police did not register the case. It is submitted that on 23rd August, 2005, the respondents No.3 took the petitioners to the Police Station and made them to sit for 4 hours without informing them anything as to why they were brought to the police station. Later on, the respondent No.3 asked the petitioners to pay Rs.10,000/stating that he would not register any case against Ganga Kanhaiya and Burhan Buddu but, would initiate proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C., and would set them free. It is further submitted that the arrest of the petitioners on 23rd August, 2005 was without following the procedure. It is further submitted that though the petitioners were ready to furnish sureties, they were unnecessarily kept in arrest till 27th August, 2005. It is submitted that their representations to the various authorities including the Superintendent of Police, Jalgaon and the Commissioner of Police were not considered, no action had been taken on the said representations. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petition deserves to be allowed.

2. The learned APP appearing for the respondents, relying upon the three affidavits/in/reply filed by the Police Officers, submitted that there was no illegal detention as alleged by the petitioners. It is submitted that CR No.211/2005 was registered against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 504 of IPC with Bhusawal City Police Station on 20th August, 2005. The petitioners were arrested for the offence under Section 41(2) of Cr.P.C., and the case was registered bearing No.74/2005 and 75/2005 for the offence under Section 110(e) and (g) of Cr.P.C. The petitioners were produced before the Special Executive Magistrate, LCB, Jalgaon. It is submitted that since the petitioners did not submit the solvency certificate till 27th August, 2005, they were not released. It is submitted that the Executive Magistrate acted in his jurisdiction and since no solvent surety was furnished, the respondent No.4 ordered detention of the petitioners. It is therefore, submitted that in the light of the affidavits/in/reply filed by the authorities, the petition is devoid of any merits and the same may be dismissed.

3. We have given careful consideration to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners and also the learned APP appearing for the State – respondents, perused the pleadings in the petition, annexures thereto, affidavits/in/reply filed by the respondents and also accompaniments of the said affidavits. Upon careful perusal of the documents placed on record and in particular, Exh.R.1 collectively, annexed with the affidavit filed by Rameshsingh s/o Pouladsingh Pardeshi, it is clear that, Chapter Case No.74/2005 and Chapter Case No.75/2005 were registered against the petitioners by invoking the provisions of Section 110(e)(g) of Cr.P.C. The said document further shows that the petitioners were arrested on 23rd August, 2005 at 15.05 Hrs. Their arrest was shown to be under Section 41(2) of Cr.P.C. Chapter VIII of Cr.P.C., and in particular, Sections 107 to 116 thereof, provides for initiation of chapter proceedings and also for asking the persons against whom such proceedings have been initiated, to execute bond and if such bond is not executed before the Executive Magistrate, section 116(3) of Cr.P.C. provides that, the Magistrate, if he considers that immediate measures are necessary for the prevention of a breach of the peace or disturbance of the public tranquility or the Commission of any offence or for the public safety, may, for reason to be recorded in writing, direct th