(1) CrWP No.356/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.356 OF 2009 1] Shaikh Iqbal s/o Shaikh ] Gani, R/o Aurangabad ] PETITIONER & another. ] VERSUS 1] The State of Maharashtra ] Through Govt.Pleader, ] RESPONDENTS. High Court, Bombay,Bench ] at Aurangabad & others ] ----- Mr.M.A.Latif, Advocate for petitioners. Mrs.R.R.Mane, APP, for respondents. ----- CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ. DATE : 18th August, 2009. ORAL ORDER [ PER – NARESH H. PATIL, J.] Heard. 2] The learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the cause of action for issuing show cause notice under section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”) was filing of a First Information Report registered in the year 2002. One of the petitioners was not even served with show cause notice. An objection was (2) CrWP No.356/2009 taken to the Police Inspector working as Special Executive Magistrate. 3] Affidavit-in-reply was filed by Dhananjay Mahadeo Yerule, Police Inspector, on behalf of respondents. Original record is also produced before us. 4] The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that under the notification issued by Deputy Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, dated 2nd March, 1993, the Police Inspectors working in the State Crime C.I.D. Branch, State Protection of Civil Rights and District Local Crime Branch are appointed as Special Executive Magistrates and are conferred with the powers of Executive Magistrate under sections 107, 108, 109 and 110 of the Cr.P.C. 5] According to deponent, respondent No.3 tried to serve copy of show cause notice to petitioner No.1, but he did not accept the said notice and refused to sign on the notice. Both the petitioners executed personal interim bonds before respondent No.3. Petitioner No.2 also gave surety as directed by respondent No.3, but petitioner No.1 did not furnish any surety. According to deponent, petitioners were directed to remain present on 17/04/2009. However, thereafter petitioners did not turn up and attend the office of respondent No.3 (3) CrWP No.356/2009 till the date of filing of reply. 6] We have perused the original record and considered the submissions advanced. Considering record and reply filed, at this stage, we are not inclined to exercise our extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. In future, Special Executive Magistrate shall take abundant care and caution to follow the provisions of law as regards execution of bond on the basis of material existing for the said purpose. It would not be appropriate to jump to a conclusion that the petitioners executed bonds on the same day and till then they were taken in the custody by police and the same would amount to illegal arrest and detention. In the fact-situation of the case, no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is warranted. 7] Petition stands disposed of. 8] APP shall communicate this order to concerned Police Inspector/Special Executive Magistrate. Authenticated copy duly signed by Sheristedar of this Court be furnished to APP. [ SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.] [ NARESH H. PATIL, J.] pcr/o/crww356.09