ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

( 1 ) PETITIONER calls in question legality of proceeding initiated by Executive Magistrate, Anandapur, in purported exercise of power under S. 110 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'code' ). According to him, mandatory requirements were not observed and he has been erroneously directed to furnish bond and thereafter because of non-furnishing of bond, has been remanded to custody. Learned counsel for the State supports the action.

( 2 ) BACKGROUND facts as stated by petitioner are essentially as follow. Petitioner was produced in custody by Officer-in-charge, Anandapur Police Station through Court Sub-Inspector, Anandapur before Executive Magistrate. Order dated 6-5-1994 shows that charges were read over and explained to the petitioner and since he did not plead guilty and wanted to be tried, he was directed to furnish bond of Rs. 10,000. 00 with two local sureties for the said amount. It was stipulated that in case of failure to furnish bond, he was to be remanded to custody. Direction was given to put up the matter before Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Anandapur. Later that day, on account of petitioner's failure to furnish bond, custody warrant was i