THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5695 of 2011 ORDER: In this writ petition, petitioners seek a mandamus declaring the action of the respondent – Station House Officer/Sub-Inspector of Police, Narayanpet Police Station, Narayanpet, Mahabubnagar District, in threatening/harassing them for their arrest even after receiving two surety bonds from them in pursuance of notice, dated 07.02.2011, issued under Section 41(B) of Cr.P.C., as illegal and arbitrary. A case was registered in Crime No.1 of 2011 on the file of Narayanpet Police Station, Mahabubnagar District, for the offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC, on a complaint lodged by the Tahsildar and Mandal Executive Magistrate, Narayanpet, Mahabubnagar. Though the names of the petitioners were not mentioned as accused in the First Information Report, the petitioners were issued notice under Section 41(B) Cr.P.C. A perusal of notice under Section 41(B) Cr.P.C., indicates that the investigation in Crime No.1 of 2011 revealed that prima facie case was made out against the petitioners for violation under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC, and that the petitioners were asked to submit the documents, which reveals their identity; two surety bonds for a sum of Rs.10,000/- each for a like sum; to appear before the police/Court as and when required by the police for investigation or summoned by the Court and to comply with the conditions mentioned as above. It is the grievance of the petitioners that though they have already furnished surety bonds and complied with all the conditions mentioned in the notice issued under Section 41(B) Cr.P.C., the respondent is bent upon to arrest them without following due process of law. On instructions, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondent that in Crime No.1 of 2011 registered on the complaint of the Tahsildar and District Executive Magistrate, Narayanpet Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, alleging that the persons named therein obtained loans from the District Cooperative Central Bank at Narayanpet, by creating some bogus pattadar passbooks and title deeds. It is further submitted that the investigation done so far clearly disclosed that the petitioners have committed the offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC. It is further submitted that though their names were not figured in the First Information Report, during the course of investigation, it was revealed that the petitioners are responsible for commission of offence, as such, steps are being taken to include their names in the array of accused in the First Information Report. It is further stated that investigation is almost completed and after completing the investigation, final report would be filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that though the petitioners have given an undertaking to cooperate with the investigation, they have not attended before the respondent for the purpose of investigation and are not cooperating with the investigating agency and approached this Court by filing this writ petition. Merely because the petitioners’ names are not figured in the First Information Report, no inference can be drawn at this stage to accept the plea of the petitioners that they are not responsible for the allegations mentioned in the aforesaid complaint, which was registered as a case in Crime No.1 of 2011. However, it is for the investigating agency to enquire into the matter and if the investigation reveals that there was involvement of the petitioners in the alleged commission of offence, it is open for the respondent to include them as accused in the First Information report. In that view of the matter, as it is stated that the investigation done so far revealed that there was involvement of the petitioners in the commission of offence, I do not find any illegality on the part of the respondent in taking steps for inclusion of their names in the First Information Report and also to investigate further. Merely because notice was issued under Section 41(B) Cr.P.C. and the petitioners have complied with the conditions itself is no ground to direct the respondent not to arrest them at all. When it is the case of the respondent that the petitioners are not cooperating with the investigating agency and not attending the Office as per the terms of the surety bonds executed by them, it is always open for the respondent to take further steps in accordance with law. Although it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in order to arrest the petitioners, further notice is required, there is no reason to apprehend that such procedure will not be followed by the respondent. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any ground for issuance of directions as prayed for. However, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondent to take further steps in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure before arresting the petitioners. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 15th MARCH, 2011. kvni