IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.72 OF 2010. Hafizoddin Inamdar and ors. ... PETITIONERS. VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and ors. ... RESPONDENTS. ... Shri C.V. Thombre, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri N.R. Shaikh, A.P.P. for Respondents. ... CORAM : S.B. DESHMUKH AND S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 7th APRIL, 2010. PER COURT: 1. We heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and by consent of the parties, taken up for hearing. 3. Mr. Thombre, learned Counsel for the petitioners points out notice dated 16th January, 2010 annexed at Exh.B. It appears that the notice is issued by the respondent Special Executive Magistrate, Beed to the present petitioners and some other villagers. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the notice is perse illegal. By this notice, the respondent has directed the present petitioners to furnish bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- and one surety each of Rs.15,000/-. The grievance of the petitioners pertains to the part of the direction that sureties be furnished by the petitioners from Hindu community. 4. In response to this petition, reply affidavit has been filed on record, which is sworn in by Mr. Sudarshan Laxmanrao Munde, Special Executive Magistrate and Police Inspector, Local Crime Branch, Beed. Action of issuing notice is justified in this reply affidavit. According to the respondents, on 16th January, 2010, message on telephone was received at Shivajinagar police station. Considering the riotous situation in the area, amongst the people belonging to Hindu & Muslim communities, report was received by the Special Executive Magistrate and that is the reason why action under Section 116(3), 107 of Cr.P.C. was initiated and the impugned notice was issued under Section 111 of the Cr.P.C. 5. This petition was before this Court on 22nd January, 2010. By the interim order, this Court had directed release of the petitioners forthwith. Apart from this order, it appears from the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners initially could not comply with the notice dated 16th January, 2010. However, on 21st January, 2010, petitioners have furnished surety of the persons belonging Mohammedan community. The notice issued stands complied with. 6. Mr. Thombre, learned Counsel for petitioners, on instructions from the petitioners, waives relief of compensation of Rs.15,000/- each in favour of the petitioners for alleged illegal detention. 7. Having considered the submissions of the Counsel for the petitioners and having considered the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, in our view, this petition can be disposed of being infructuous. 8. This petition stands disposed of without any order as to costs. Rule discharged. [ S.S. SHINDE, J ] [ S.B. DESHMUKH, J ] Kadam/*