Delhi District Court
Gaurav Vashisht And Anr vs The State Nct Of Delhi on 18 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, SFTC-01, WEST
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
(Presiding Officer: Mr. Satyabrata Panda, DHJS)
CRL. REV. NO. 152/2020
CNR NO. DLWT01-005603-2020
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. Gaurav Vashisht
S/O Late Sh. Subhash Kumar Vashisht
2. Ansu Vashisht W/O Sh. Gaurav Vashisht
Both R/O RZF-13, 3rd Floor, Satsang Road, Nihal Vihar,
New Delhi-110041
...Petitioners
Versus
1. The State
Through Its Secretary
N.C.T. Of Delhi
2. Ms. Seema D/o Sh. Suresh kumar
3. Deepak kumar S/o Sh. Suresh kumar
Both R/o RZF-13, Part G. Floor, Satsang Road, Nihal
Vihar, New Delhi-110041
....Respondents
Case instituted on 09.11.2020
Judgment reserved on 15.12.2025
Judgment pronounced on 18.12.2025
Appearance for the parties:
Mr. Pradeep Mahajan and Mr. Tanmay Surana, Ld. Counsels for
petitioners
Mr. P.N. Singh, Ld. Addl. PP for respondent no.1 State
Mr.Narendra Prasad, Ld. Counsel for respondents nos. 2 and 3
Gaurav Vashisht & Anr. vs The State of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors
Crl. Rev. No. 52/2020 Page No. 1/37
Digitally signed
by
SATYABRATA
SATYABRATA PANDA
PANDA Date:
2025.12.18
16:40:43 +0530
JUDGMENT
1. By way of the present revision petition under section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 09.10.2020 and show cause notice dated 09.10.2020 u/s. 107/111 Cr.P.C. made by the Special Executive Magistrate (SEM), Outer District, New Delhi in proceedings in File No.107/20-AB arising out of Kalandara u/s. 107/150 Cr.P.C. of DD No. 148-A PS Nihal Vihar.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Kalandara of DD No. 148-A was prepared by ASI Heera Lal, PS Nihal Vihar, which records, in brief, as follows: On 13.09.2020, upon receipt of DD No. 47A, ASI Heera Lal along with Ct. Ajay reached at the spot, where it was informed that the complainant Seema along with her sister and brother Deepak had appeared at the police station and had filed a complaint against their landlord Gaurav Vashist stating that the landlord was not returning their security deposit of Rs. 2.50 lakh despite expiry of their agreement and that landlord was quarrelling when the return of the security deposit was asked for and was threatening to beat and that the landlord had stopped giving them water and threatened to cut off electricity connection. The complainant had also given complaint in writing. ASI Heera Lal informed to the SHO who discussed with senior officers and directed for action u/s. 107/150 Cr.P.C. Action u/s. 107/150 CrPC was initiated against both the parties. Both the parties are Gaurav Vashisht & Anr. vs The State of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors Crl. Rev. No. 52/2020 Page No. 2/37 Digitally signed by SATYABRATA SATYABRATA PANDA PANDA Date: 2025.12.18 16:41:03 +0530 facing threat to life and property from each other and action is being taken under Kalandara U/S 107/150 CrPC.
3. The Kalandara was forwarded to the SEM, pursuant pu to which, the SEM passed order dated 09.10.2020 u/s. 107/111 Cr.P.C. directing for issuance of notice to the petitioners. The order dated 09.10.2020 is extracted, as follows:
"Heard the IO and his statement recorded. I am satisfied from the information received and facts brought before me and of view that there are sufficient grounds to proceed U/S 107/150 Cr.P.C against the respondents. Issue notice U/S 107/111 CrPC to the respondents. Case to come upon 19.10.20."
4. Pursuant to the said order dated 09.10.2020, notice u/s.
107/111 Cr.P.C. dated 09.10.2020 was issued to the petitioners. The notice issued to the petitioner no.1 is extracted hereunder (a similar notice was also issued to the petitioner no.2):
"NOTICE U/S 107/111 Cr.P.C "Whereas from the report of SHO/NIHAL VIHAR it appears that you (ANSU VASHIST) abused & threatened to (DEEPAK KUMAR) and others with dire comequences during dispute which arose by your acts of behavior over on the issue of rent Gaurav Vashisht & Anr. vs The State of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors Crl. Rev. No. 52/2020 Page No. 3/37 Digitally signed by SATYABRATA SATYABRATA PANDA PANDA Date:
2025.12.18 16:41:06 +0530 agreement matter. There is apprehension of breach of peace in the locality which may result in occurrence of cognizable offense and can disturb the public tranquility.
That you are likely to do a wrongful act which may result in the breach of peace within the local limits of my jurisdiction and I am satisfied from the Police report that there an sufficient grounds for initiating proceedings against you.
Therefore, I RAKESH SANGWAN, SEM, Outer Distr. Pitam Pura Police Line. Delhi do hereby direct you to appear in the court on 19.10.20 at 2 P.M and show cause why you should not be bound with a sum of Rs 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount for keeping peace for a period of the conclusion of the enquiry proceedings and reply if any should be submitted on the date fixed."
5. In the first hearing held by the SEM on 19.10.2020, the following order was passed:
"Respondent Gaurav Vashist is present in the court. Heard him in details. Respondent Ansu Vashist is absent. Ld. Counsel moved exemption of respondent Ansu. Vashist which is accepted after examination and placed in file. Both respondent are directed to produce surety bonds on next date. Case is to come up on 20.11.20."
Gaurav Vashisht & Anr. vs The State of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors Crl. Rev. No. 52/2020 Page No. 4/37 Digitally signed by SATYABRATA SATYABRATA PANDA PANDA Date: 2025.12.18 16:41:10 +0530
6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid proceedings of the SEM, the petitioners filed the present petition under section 397 read with section 399 CrPC, which was filed on 09.11.2020 as per the filing stamp on the record.
7. Vide order dated 18.12.2020 passed in the present petition, the proceedings before the SEM were stayed.
8. The record of the proceedings before the SEM was called for and the TCR in the matter was received.
9. Although in the revision petition, the petitioners had only challenged the order dated 09.10.2020 of the SEM, however, since the record of the proceedings of the SEM was before the Court, this Court has vide order dated 15.12.2025 decided to also suo motu examine, in exercise of revision jurisdiction u/s. 397 read with section 399 CrPC, the correctness and legality of the order dated 19.10.2020 of the SEM. The order dated 15.12.2025 in the present case is extracted hereunder:
"xxx xxx xxx
6. By way of the present revision petition under section 397 read with Section 399 CrPC, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 09.10.2020 passed by the Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) directing the issuance of notice to the petitioners under Section 107/111 CrPC as well as the notice under Section 107/111 CrPC dated Gaurav Vashisht & Anr. vs The State of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors Crl. Rev. No. 52/2020 Page No. 5/37 Digitally signed by SATYABRATA SATYABRATA PANDA PANDA Date:
2025.12.18 16:41:13 +0530 09.10.2020 which was issued to the petitioners pursuant to the said order. The said impugned order and show cause notice was made by the SEM in proceedings arising out of the Kalandra in respect of DD number 148-A under Section 107/150 CrPC, PS Nihal Vihar.
7. As per the filing stamp on the record, the present revision petition was filed on 09.11.2020.
8. During the course of submissions in final arguments, Ld. counsel for the private respondents has submitted inter alia that the present revision petition is not maintainable against the order and show cause notice dated 09.10.2020 under Section 107/111 CrPC since the said order was an interlocutory order under Section 397(2) CrPC. In this regard, Ld. Counsel has referred to the decision dated 26.07.2010 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Crl.MC.No.2265/2010 titled as Sanjeev Kapoor Vs State (NCT of Delhi).
9. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for the petitioners has submitted inter alia that the order dated 09.10.2020 was not an interlocutory order and hence the revision petition was maintainable.
10. It is pertinent to record that the Ld. counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that pursuant to the order dated 09.10.2020, the concerned SEM had Gaurav Vashisht & Anr. vs The State of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors Crl. Rev. No. 52/2020 Page No. 6/37 Digitally signed by SATYABRATA SATYABRATA PANDA PANDA Date: 2025.12.18 16:41:17 +0530 in the first hearing on 19.10.2020 itself also passed order directing the petitioners to furnish surety bonds. Ld. counsel has submitted that the said order dated 19.10.2020 directing the petitioners to furnish surety bonds was without jurisdiction and was an illegality. It is further submitted that even no reasons were given for issuing directions to the petitioners to produce surety bonds vide order dated 19.10.2020.
11. Ld counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that although in the revision petition, the petitioners challenged only the order dated 09.10.2020 and did not specifically challenge the order dated 19.10.2020, however, since the record of the proceedings of the SEM had already been called for and received in the present revision petition and the record was before the Court, this Court may also examine the legality and correctness of the order dated 19.10.2020. Ld. counsel has further submitted that the order dated 19.10.2020 directing the petitioners to furnish surety bonds was not an interlocutory order and this Court could exercise revisional jurisdiction in respect of the said order.
12. On the other hand, Ld counsel for the private respondents has submitted that since in the revision petition, the petitioners had challenged only the order dated 09.10.2020 issuing notice to the petitioners under Section 107/111 CrPC and had not Gaurav Vashisht & Anr. vs The State of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors Crl. Rev. No. 52/2020 Page No. 7/37 Digitally signed by SATYABRATA SATYABRATA PANDA PANDA Date:
2025.12.18 16:41:20 +0530 challenged the subsequent order dated 19.10.2020 directing for furnishing of surety bonds, hence, at this stage, it would not be appropriate for this Court to exercise revisional jurisdiction to examine the legality and correctness of the order dated 19.10.2020.
13. Ld counsel for the private respondents has further submitted that, in any case, the order dated 19.10.2020 was also an interlocutory order and as such, this court did not have the revisional jurisdiction to examine the legality and correctness of the order dated 19.10.2020 directing for furnishing of surety bonds.
14. I have considered this aspect of the matter regarding going into the legality and correctness of the order dated 19.10.2020.
15. Although in the revision petition the petitioners have challenged only the order dated 09.10.2020 passed by the SEM, however, the record of the proceedings of the SEM was called by this Court and has been received. The TCR is hence before the Court. I have perused the order dated 19.10.2020. Prima facie, the order dated 19.10.2020 directing the petitioners to produce surety bonds is devoid of any reasons. Prima facie, in light of proviso (a) to section 116(3) CrPC, the jurisdiction Gaurav Vashisht & Anr. vs The State of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors Crl. Rev. No. 52/2020 Page No. 8/37 Digitally signed by SATYABRATA SATYABRATA PANDA PANDA Date: 2025.12.18 16:41:24 +0530 of the Executive Magistrate under Section 116(3) CrPC to direct furnishing of interim surety bonds is only in cases under sections 108, 109 and 110 CrPC and not in a case under section 107 CrPC such as the present case.
16. In these facts and circumstances, when the record is before the Court and a serious prima facie issue regarding the legality and correctness of the order dated 19.10.2020 has arisen, this Court deems it fit under Section 397 read with Section 399 CrPC to suo motu also examine the correctness and illegality of the order dated 19.10.2020. Of course, this examination would be subject to and without prejudice to the contention of the private respondents that the order dated 19.10.2020 was an interlocutory order and as such was not amenable to interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 399 CrPC.
17. Heard the submissions of the Ld. counsels for the parties on the legality and correctness of the order dated 09.10.2020 as well as the order dated 19.10.2020 as well as regarding whether these orders were interlocutory orders which would bar the revision jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397 read with Section 399 CrPC.
Gaurav Vashisht & Anr. vs The State of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors Crl. Rev. No. 52/2020 Page No. 9/37 Digitally signed by SATYABRATA SATYABRATA PANDA PANDA Date: 2025.12.18 16:41:29 +0530
18. Although the parties had already earlier filed written submissions, however, since today the Court has also heard submissions in respect of the order dated 19.10.2020, the parties are at liberty to file supplementary written submissions within 2 days, if they wish to, with advance copy to the other side.
19. Relist for orders/clarifications, if any, on 18.12.2025."
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has made the following submissions:
10.1. It is submitted that the order dated 09.10.20 as well as notice dated 09.10.20 u/s. 107/111 were illegal and deserve to be set aside since the same were not based on any independent inquiry by the SEM. It is further submitted that neither the order dated 09.10.20 nor the notice dated 09.10.20 reveal any application of mind by the SEM nor do they reveal any grounds given by the SEM to support that a notice was required to be issued to the petitioners u/s. 107/111. It is submitted that prior to passing any order u/s. 107/111 Cr.P.C. for issuing notice, the SEM ought to be satisfied regarding the necessity to issue the notice and the satisfaction has to be recorded in writing, which was absent in the present case. It is submitted that in present case, there is no satisfaction recorded in writing neither Gaurav Vashisht & Anr. vs The State of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors Crl. Rev. No. 52/2020 Page No. 10/37 Digitally signed by SATYABRATA SATYABRATA PANDA PANDA Date: 2025.12.18 16:41:35 +0530 in the order nor in the notice both dated 09.10.20, and the same are non speaking. It is submitted that hence, the order as well as notice dated 09.10.2020 u/s. 107/111 Cr.P.C. deserve to be quashed. In this regard, Ld counsel has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amar Nath & Ors.
vs. State of Haryana & Ars., (1997) 4 SCC 137, and the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Delh in Vivek Kumar vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ars., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 417, Ram Avtar vs. The State in W.P. (CRL.) 1146/2016 Judgment Dated 30.04.2025, Ashok Kumar Vijhani & Ors. vs. State & Ors. 2011 SCC OnLine Del 2137, Asha Pant vs. State & Ors. 2008 SCC OnLine Del 367, Satya Devi vs. State & Ors in Crl. M.C. 3406/2007 Judgment Dated 31.07.2008, and Tavinder Kumar & Ors. vs. State 1989 SCC OnLine Del 380.
10.2. It is further submitted that it is well settled that notices and summons u/s. 107/111 Cr.P.C. were not to be issued in cases of inter se quarrels and disputes between landlord and tenant, or between neighbours or private individuals. It is submitted that in the present case, the SEM had mechanically and without application of mind issued the notice u/s. 107/111 Cr.P.C. without even recording any satisfaction as to existence of any grounds for initiating the proceedings.
Gaurav Vashisht & Anr. vs The State of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors Crl. Rev. No. 52/2020 Page No. 11/37 Digitally signed by SATYABRATA SATYABRATA PANDA PANDA Date:
2025.12.18 16:41:39 +0530 10.3. It is further submitted that after the issuance of notice dated 09.10.2020, on the very first date of hearing on 19.10.20, the SEM straight away directed the petitioners to produce surety bonds. It is submitted that again, in giving this direction, the SEM did not give any reasons. It is further submitted that in any case, the SEM was not empowered to straight away call upon the petitioners to execute surety bonds on the very first date of hearing. It is submitted that, hence, even on this ground, the orders of the SEM are liable to be set aside.
11. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for the private respondents has made the following submissions:
11.1. Ld. counsel has raised preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the present revision petition. It is submitted that the present revision petition under section 397 Cr.P.C. was not maintainable, since only interlocutory orders had been passed by the SEM. It is submitted that the SEM had only issued notice under section 107/111 Cr.P.C. to the petitioners to show cause as to why they should not be directed to file the surety bonds. It is submitted that the order directing for issuance of the notice and the show cause notice itself were only interlocutory orders and as such were not amenable to revision under Section 397 CrPC. In this regard, Gaurav Vashisht & Anr. vs The State of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors Crl. Rev. No. 52/2020 Page No. 12/37 Digitally signed by SATYABRATA SATYABRATA PANDA PANDA Date: 2025.12.18 16:41:43 +0530 Ld. Counsel has relied upon the decision dated 26.07.2010 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Crl.M.C. No.2265/2010 titled as Sanjeev Kapur v. State (NCT of Delhi).
11.2. It is further submitted that even the order dated 19.10.2020 passed by the SEM directing for furnishing of interim surety bonds was interlocutory in nature and was not amenable to interference in revision under section 397 CrPC.
11.3. Ld counsel for the private respondents has further submitted that, in any case, there was no illegality in the orders passed by the SEM and that no ground for revision was even otherwise made out. On this basis, it is submitted that the revision petition deserves to be dismissed.
12. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has also submitted that the orders and proceedings of the SEM do not call for any interference.
13. In rejoinder, Ld counsel for the petitioners has made the following submissions:
13.1. It is submitted that the present revision petition was maintainable. It is submitted that the order dated 09.10.2020 and the notice dated 09.10.2020 under section 107/111 CrPC calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why they should not be directed Gaurav Vashisht & Anr. vs The State of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors Crl. Rev. No. 52/2020 Page No. 13/37 Digitally signed by SATYABRATA SATYABRATA PANDA PANDA Date:
2025.12.18 16:41:46 +0530 to execute bonds were not interlocutory orders. It is submitted that these were orders which were a matter of the moment for the petitioners and hence the revision petition was maintainable. In this regard, Ld. Counsel has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amar Nath v. State of Haryana (1997) 4 SCC 137. Ld. counsel has further submitted that the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sanjeev Kapur (supra) was per incuriam since it did not notice the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amar Nath (supra).
13.2. It is further submitted that, in any case, in the present case, the SEM had not only issued the show cause notice under Section 107/111 CrPC, but had subsequently, on the first date of hearing itself on 19.10.2020, had also straight away directed the petitioners to execute the surety bonds. It is submitted that interference under revision jurisdiction in the present case was permissible since the SEM had also passed order directing for execution of surety bonds which was not an interlocutory order.
14. I have considered the submissions of the Ld. counsels for the parties and I have perused the record.
15. The decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sanjeev Kapur (supra), which is relied upon by the private Gaurav Vashisht & Anr. vs The State of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors Crl. Rev. No. 52/2020 Page No. 14/37 Digitally signed by SATYABRATA SATYABRATA PANDA PANDA Date: 2025.12.18 16:41:50 +0530 respondents, is clear authority that a mere show cause notice u/s. 107/111 CrPC is an "interlocutory order" and is not amenable to revision u/s. 397 CrPC. Although, the Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has sought to contend that the decision in Sanjeev Kapur (supra) was per incuriam since this decision ignored the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amar Nath (supra), however, for the purposes of the present petition, this controversy need not be gone into for the simple reason that the present case is not a case involving the mere issuance of a show cause notice dated 09.10.2020 u/s. 107/111 but also involves passing of a subsequent order dated 19.10.2020 by the SEM directing the petitioners to furnish surety bonds. In Sanjeev Kapur (supra), the case did not involve any order for furnishing interim surety bonds as in the present case.
16. Vide order dated 19.10.2020, in the present case, the SEM directed the petitioners to furnish surety bonds. The order dated 19.10.2020 does not specify under what provision the SEM was directing the petitioners to furnish surety bonds, whether the direction to furnish the surety bonds was interim in nature u/s. 116(3) CrPC or was final in nature u/s. 117 CrPC. A direction u/s. 117 CrPC to furnish surety bonds is final in nature and is made only after the inquiry as envisaged u/s. 116 CrPC is completed. In the present case, the order dated 19.10.2020 was passed on the very first day of hearing and no inquiry as envisaged u/s. 116 CrPC had been conducted. Thus, clearly the order dated 19.10.2020 was not an order for furnishing surety Gaurav Vashisht & Anr. vs The State of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors Crl. Rev. No. 52/2020 Page No. 15/37 Digitally signed by SATYABRATA SATYABRATA PANDA PANDA Date:
2025.12.18 16:41:53 +0530 bonds u/s. 117 CrPC. Thus, the direction vide the order 19.10.2020 was made by the SEM purportedly u/s. 116(3) CrPC for furnishing interim surety bonds pending the inquiry.
17. In this view of the matter, this Court would have jurisdiction u/s. 397 read with section 399 Cr.P.C. to examine the legality and correctness of the order for furnishing interim surety bonds in revision. The clear authority for this is the decision of the Hon'ble Patna High Court (Division Bench) in Manjoor Ahmad v. State of Bihar, 1978 SCC OnLine Pat 49 : 1978 PLJR 475 : (1978) 26 BLJR 630 : 1978 Cri LJ (NOC 243) 123 : 1978 BBCJ 486, which involved challenge in a revision petition u/s. 397 CrPC to an order u/s. 116(3) for furnishing interim bond. The relevant portion of the decision in Manjoor Ahmad (supra) is extracted hereunder, in extenso:
"4. Learned Sessions Judge erred in holding that the order of the Magistrate dated 5-12-1977 is an interlocutory order as contemplated by Section 397(2) of the Code and that no application in revision lies against such an order. Fazlali, J. who delivered the judgment of the Supreme Court in (1) Amar Nath v. State of Haryana (A.I.R. 1977 Supreme Court 2185) has observed:
"----It seems to us that the term "interlocutory order". In Section 397(2) of the 1973 Code has been used in a restricted sense and not in any broad or artistic sense. It merely denotes orders of a purely interim or Gaurav Vashisht & Anr. vs The State of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors Crl. Rev. No. 52/2020 Page No. 16/37 Digitally signed by SATYABRATA SATYABRATA PANDA PANDA Date:
2025.12.18 16:41:59 +0530 temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important rights or the liabilities of the parties. Any order which substantially affects the rights of the accused, or decides certain rights of the parties cannot be said to be an interlocutory order so as to bar a revision to the High Court against that order, because that would be against the very object which formed the basis for insertion of this particular provision in S. 397 of the 1973 Code....
But orders which are matters of moment and which affect or adjudicate the rights of the accused or a particular aspect of the trial cannot be said to be interlocutory order so as to be outside the purview of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court."
5. In (2) Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra (A.I.R. 1978 Supreme Court 47) Untwalla, J. who spoke for the Court observed:
".....On the one hand, the legislature kept intact the revisional power of the High Court and, on the other, it put a bar on the exercise of that power in relation to any interlocutory order. In such a situation it appears to us that the real Intention of the legislature was not to equate the expression "Interlocutory order as invariably being converse of the words "final order". There may be an order passed during the course of a proceeding which may not be final in the sense noticed in Kuppuswami's case (AIR 1949 FC 1) (Supra), but yet it may not be an interlocutory order-pure or simple. Some kinds of order may fall in between the Gaurav Vashisht & Anr. vs The State of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors Crl. Rev. No. 52/2020 Page No. 17/37 Digitally signed by SATYABRATA SATYABRATA PANDA PANDA Date:
2025.12.18 16:42:02 +0530 two. By a rule of harmonious construction, we think that the bar in Sub-section (2) of Section 397 is not meant to be attracted to such kinds of intermediate orders".
6. An order under Section 116(3) of the Code directing a party to execute ad-interim bond affects the party concerned and therefore it cannot be said to be an interlocutory order so as to be out side the purview of revisional jurisdiction.
7. In (3) Bindeshwar Singh alias Binda Singh v. Ram Baran Singh (1976 B.L.J.R. 99) it has been held by one of us, sitting singly, that the order under Section 116(3) of the Code directing a person proceeded against under Section 107 of the Code to execute a bond to maintain peace till the conclusion of the enquiry is not interlocutory as contemplated by Sub-section (2) of Section 397 of the Code. In view of the aforesaid discussions the Impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge holding that the order of the learned Magistrate passed under Section 116(3) of the Code is an interlocutory order and no revision application lies is obviously erroneous and is liable to be set aside."
(Emphasis supplied by me)
18. In view of the aforesaid decision, an order u/s. 116(3) CrPC for furnishing interim surety bond was not an interlocutory order and would be amenable to revision jurisdiction. Since the present case involves not only a show cause notice u/s. 107/111 CrPC but also a subsequent order for interim bond u/s. 116(3) CrPC which is not an interlocutory order, this Court can in exercise of powers of Gaurav Vashisht & Anr. vs The State of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors Crl. Rev. No. 52/2020 Page No. 18/37 Digitally signed by SATYABRATA SATYABRATA PANDA PANDA Date:
2025.12.18 16:42:06 +0530 revision examine the correctness and legality of the order for furnishing interim surety bonds. It is next to be seen as to whether the order dated 19.10.2020 of the SEM for furnishing surety bonds u/s. 116(3) CrPC can be sustained.
19. The undisputed position is that the SEM had proceeded under section 107 CrPC read with section 111 CrPC. There is ample authority that in proceedings u/s. 107/111 CrPC, the party cannot be directed to furnish interim surety bonds u/s. 116(3) CrPC and that the power to direct furnishing interim bonds u/s. 116(3) can be exercised only in cases involving sections 108, 109 and 110 CrPC. There is no dispute that the proceedings before the SEM in the present case were not u/s. 108, 109 or 110 CrPC. Hence, the direction to the petitioners in the present case to furnish interim surety bonds was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. In this regard, reference is made to the following decisions.
20. In State of Maharashtra v. Mangali Dewaiyya Pupalla , 1992 SCC OnLine Bom 401 : (1994) 1 Mah LJ 483 :
(1993) 1 Bom CR 114 : (1993) 95 Bom LR 947, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"1. A short question that arises in this group of criminal revision applications is, whether a Magistrate who is holding an inquiry under section 116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) in respect of an information led before him against a person under section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code, acting under sub-section (3) of section 116 of Gaurav Vashisht & Anr. vs The State of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors Crl. Rev. No. 52/2020 Page No. 19/37 Digitally signed by SATYABRATA SATYABRATA PANDA PANDA Date:
2025.12.18 16:42:09 +0530 the Code can pass an order directing such person to execute a Bond with or without surety for keeping the peace or maintaining good behaviour during the pendency of such enquiry till its conclusion.
xxx xxx xxx
3. Special Executive Magistrate, Chandrapur in proceedings under section 107 read with 116 and 151 of the Code started on Istagasha, filed by the Police Inspector of Chandrapur, City Police Station, directed each of the persons in these cases to execute a P.R. Bond for Rs. 25,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in like amount pending the enquiry in the case registered on the Istagasha against each of them.
4. This order came to be challenged before the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur by filing different criminal revision applications. The learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, came to the conclusion that the power under sub-section (3) of section 116 to direct a person to execute a Bond does not apply to a case arising under section 107 of the Code and consequently the Special Executive Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass such an order. Accordingly, he has set aside all these orders and directed the concerned Executive Magistrate to proceed with the enquiry.
5. The relevant provisions which require consideration are contained in Chapter VIII of the Code which relate to provisions regarding security for keeping the peace and for good behaviour. Section 106 provides for cases of persons who are directed to furnish security for keeping peace on Gaurav Vashisht & Anr. vs The State of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors Crl. Rev. No. 52/2020 Page No. 20/37 Digitally signed by SATYABRATA SATYABRATA PANDA PANDA Date:
2025.12.18 16:42:14 +0530 conviction. Section 107 relates to cases where security for keeping peace is ordered in certain cases where person concerned is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity. Section 108 contemplates cases where persons disseminating seditious matter are dealt with. Section 109 deals with cases of suspected persons, whereas section 110 deals with cases of habitual offenders. Sections 111 to 116 relate to the actual procedure to be undertaken by the concerned Magistrate in cases arising under sections 107, 108, 109 and 110. Section 111 which requires to be taken note of reads as under:
"111. When a Magistrate acting under section 107, section 108, section 109 or section 110 deems it necessary to require any person to show cause under such section, he shall make an order in writing, setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond to be executed, the term for which it is to be in force, and the number, character and class of sureties (if any) required,"
6. The next provision which requires consideration is section 116 which reads as under:
"116.Inquiry as to truth of information. -- (1) When an order under section 111 has been read or explained under section 112 to a person present in Court, or when any person appears or is brought before a Magistrate in compliance with, or in execution of, a summons or warrant, issued under section 113, the Magistrate shall proceed to inquire Gaurav Vashisht & Anr. vs The State of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors Crl. Rev. No. 52/2020 Page No. 21/37 Digitally signed by SATYABRATA SATYABRATA PANDA PANDA Date:
2025.12.18 16:42:17 +0530 into the truth of the information upon which action has been taken, and to take such further evidence as may appear necessary.
(2) Such inquiry shall be made, as nearly as may be practicable, in the manner hereinafter prescribed for conducting trials and recording evidence in summons cases.
(3) After the commencement and before the completion, of the inquiry under sub-section (1), the Magistrate, if he considers that immediate measures are necessary for the prevention of the breach of the peace or disturbance of the public tranquillity or the commission of any offence or for the public safety, may, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, direct the persori in respect of whom the order under section 111 has been made to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for keeping the peace or maintaining good behaviour until the conclusion of the inquiry, and may detain him in custody until such a bond is executed, or, in default of execution, until the inquiry is concluded;
Provided that--
(a) no person against whom proceedings are not being taken under section 108, Section 109 or section 110 shall be directed to execute a bond for maintaining good behaviour;
(b) the conditions of such bond, whether as to the amount thereof or as to the provision of sureties or the number thereof or the pecuniary extent of their liability, shall not be Gaurav Vashisht & Anr. vs The State of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors Crl. Rev. No. 52/2020 Page No. 22/37 Digitally signed by SATYABRATA SATYABRATA PANDA PANDA Date:
2025.12.18 16:42:20 +0530 more onerous than those specified in the order under section 111.
(4) For the purposes of this Section the fact that a person is an habitual offender or is so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large without security hazardous to the community may be proved by evidence of general repute or otherwise.
(5) Where two or more persons have been associated together in the matter under inquiry, they may be dealt within the same or separate inquiries as the Magistrate shall think just, (6) The inquiry under this section shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of its commencement, and if such inquiry is not so completed, the proceedings under this Chapter shall, on the expiry of the said period, stand terminated unless, for special reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs:
Provided that where any person has been kept in detention pending such inquiry, the proceeding against that person, unless terminated earlier, shall stand terminated on the expiry of a period of six months of such detention.
(7) Where any direction is made under sub-
section (6) permitting the continuance of proceedings, the Sessions Judge may, on the application made to him by the aggrieved party, vacate such direction if he is satisfied Gaurav Vashisht & Anr. vs The State of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors Crl. Rev. No. 52/2020 Page No. 23/37 Digitally signed by SATYABRATA SATYABRATA PANDA PANDA Date:
2025.12.18 16:42:24 +0530 that it was not based on any special reason or was perverse."
7. The contention advanced by Shri Sinha, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State is that, in as much as sub-section (3) of section 116 which requires the Magistrate to pass an order directing a person to execute a bond for keeping peace or maintenance of good behaviour during the pendency of the inquiry in respect of a person of whom the order under section 111 has been made, it clearly covers cases arising under section 107, 108 and 110 of the Code for the simple reason that section 111 includes all the cases arising under these four sections. His contention was that, since the power to obtain a bond during the pendency of the inquiry is a general power given to the Magistrate in respect of any person against whom an order under section 111 has been made and since section 111 includes also section 107, it will have to be interpreted that this power under sub-section (3) of section 116 also includes cases arising under section 107 of the Code.
8. Shri Sinha would have been right in his contention if the provisions of section 116 sub-
section (3) had been there without the Proviso and particularly its clause (a). Clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (3) specifically states that no person against whom proceedings are not being taken under sections 108, 109 and 110 shall be directed to execute a bond for maintaining good behaviour. To put it in a positive form, it means that the Magistrate is empowered to direct a person to execute a bond for maintaining good behaviour where proceedings are taken against such person under sections 108, 109 or 110 only. Thus clause (a) of the proviso to Gaurav Vashisht & Anr. vs The State of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors Crl. Rev. No. 52/2020 Page No. 24/37 Digitally signed by SATYABRATA SATYABRATA PANDA PANDA Date: 2025.12.18 16:42:28 +0530 sub-section (3) of section 116 has made a deliberate omission of section 107. There appears also to be some reason and logic behind it. If we look at the relevant provisions of sections 107, 108, 109 and 110, it is at once clear that cases contemplated by sections 108, 109 and 110 are of more serious nature than those under section 107 of the Code. That is why although by sub-section (3) of section 116 of the Code, a general power is conferred on the Magistrate holding the inquiry to ask a person to execute a bond for keeping peace or maintaining good behaviour, still by enacting clause (a) of the proviso to sob-section (3) an exception has been made in respect of cases arising under S. 107 of the Code. This is the only way in which clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 111 can be interpreted and can be given meaning to it. To accept the contention of Shri Sinha would totally render clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 116 otiose and according to the well accepted annons of construction, no provision of a Statute can be interpreted in a manner which will render it otiose if otherwise it can be given a meaningful interpretation. In my view, therefore, the Correct interpretation of Clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 116 of the Code is that the power of the Magistrate to direct a person to execute a Bond for keeping the peace or maintaining good behaviour until the conclusion of the inquiry is restricted only to cases arising under sections 108, 109 or 110 of the Code. That being the correct position of law, the order passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, in all these matters setting aside the order of Special Executive Magistrate, Chandrapur, directing the persons against whom cases are pending under section 107 read with section 116 of the Code is correct and Gaurav Vashisht & Anr. vs The State of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors Crl. Rev. No. 52/2020 Page No. 25/37 Digitally signed by SATYABRATA SATYABRATA PANDA PANDA Date:
2025.12.18 16:42:31 +0530 does not call for any interference. Rule accordingly stands discharged and all the revision applications accordingly stand dismissed."
(Emphasis supplied by me)
21. In Rajesh v. State of Maharashtra, 2006 SCC OnLine Bom 567 : (2006) 5 Mah LJ 243 : (2006) 2 Bom CR (Cri) 199, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"10. While passing an order under section 116(3) of the Code, the Magistrate is also expected to be conscious about the provisions relating to requirements of the bond. Since under new section 116(3) of the Code a Magistrate cannot demand any surety bond, in a proceeding initiated under section 107 of the Code the question of executing the bond or the liability of furnishing the surety will no longer arise under the said section. The relevant provisions of section 116 of the Code reads as under:--
Section 116: Inquiry as to truth of information. -- (1) When an order under section 111 has been read or explained under section 112 to a person present in Court, or when any person appears or is brought before a Magistrate in compliance with, or in execution of, a summons or warrant, issued under section 113, the Magistrate shall proceed to inquiry into the truth of the information upon which action has been taken, and to take such further evidence as may appear necessary.
(2) Such inquiry shall be made, as nearly as may be practicable, in the manner hereinafter Gaurav Vashisht & Anr. vs The State of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors Crl. Rev. No. 52/2020 Page No. 26/37 Digitally signed by SATYABRATA SATYABRATA PANDA PANDA Date:
2025.12.18 16:42:35 +0530 prescribed for conducting trial and recording evidence in Summons cases.
(3) After the commencement, and before the completion, of the inquiry under sub-section (1), 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 reasons to be recorded in writing, direct the person in respect of whom the order under section 111 has been made to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for keeping the peace or maintaining good behaviour until the conclusion of the inquiry, and may detain him in custody until such bond is executed or, in default of execution, until the inquiry is concluded:
Provided that -
(a) no person against whom proceedings are not being taken under section 108, section 109, or section 110 shall be directed to execute a bond for maintaining good behaviour;
(b) the condition of such bond, whether as to the amount thereof or as to the provision of sureties or the number thereof or the pecuniary extent of their liability, shall not be more onerous than those specified in the order under section 111.
Sub-section (4).......... onwards not relevant for our purpose.
Gaurav Vashisht & Anr. vs The State of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors Crl. Rev. No. 52/2020 Page No. 27/37 Digitally signed by SATYABRATA SATYABRATA PANDA PANDA Date: 2025.12.18 16:42:38 +0530
11. This, we are required to highlight as a fact that in a proceedings initiated under section 107 of the Code, it is common practice on the part of the Executive Magistrate to insist for surety bond by passing interim order under section 116(3) Criminal Procedure Code. The Court has taken judicial notice of this that in spite of a clearcut provisions in clause
(a) of the proviso to sub section (3) of section 116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in a proceeding initiated under section 107 of the Code and the form No. 12 (Schedule II) which is prescribed for executing bond under section 107 of the Code, persons are detained in judicial custody for their failure to furnish interim surety in a proceeding initiated under section 107 of Chapter VIII of the Code in exercise of jurisdiction not vested upon them in law. (See State of Maharashtra v. Mangali Dewaiyya Pupalla, 1994 (1) Mh.L.J. 483, Mrs. Pramila Navin Shaha v. State of Maharashtra, 2006 (1) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 655; 2005 All MR (Cri) 1233). Having clarified the fact that in a proceeding initiated under section 107 of the Code no surety/security or personal bond is required to be furnished under an interim order under section 116(3), Criminal Procedure Code, henceforth if it comes to the notice of this Court that a person against whom proceeding are initiated under section 107 of the Code is detained in judicial custody for failure on his part to furnish interim surety/security Bond or personal Bond pursuant to an order passed under section 116(3) of Criminal Procedure Code. The State shall be liable to pay compensation to such person for violation of his fundamental right enshrined under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India and the aggrieved person may also take recourse to other remedies available to him under the general law viz. to prosecute the said Magistrate for Gaurav Vashisht & Anr. vs The State of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors Crl. Rev. No. 52/2020 Page No. 28/37 Digitally signed by SATYABRATA SATYABRATA PANDA PANDA Date:
2025.12.18 16:42:42 +0530 wrongful confinement and appropriate compensation for wrongful detention."
(Emphasis supplied by me)
22. In Arun v. State of Maharashtra, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 3655, the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay held as under:
"19. The provision of Section 113 and relevant portion of provision of Section 116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure quoted above shows that when chapter proceeding is started under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Executive Magistrate is not expected to issue warrant. He can issue only summons or notice and send show cause notice under Section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to opponents. The grounds given in Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not that serious and they do not show that there is urgency and they need to be arrested first. Ordinarily, for proposing chapter case under Section 108, 109 and 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, police use provision of Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and they make arrest and then they produce the accused alongwith proposal of chapter case before the Executive Magistrate. The provision of Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure enables police to arrest the opponent as the police form opinion that there is a possibility of commission of cognizable offence by the opponent. There is no such possibility when chapter case is to be started under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus, arrest before issuing show cause notice under Section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when chapter proceeding is to be filed under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Gaurav Vashisht & Anr. vs The State of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors Crl. Rev. No. 52/2020 Page No. 29/37 Digitally signed by SATYABRATA SATYABRATA PANDA PANDA Date: 2025.12.18 16:42:45 +0530 Procedure is not permissible and it is illegal. Similarly, in view of the provision of Section 116(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, interim bond cannot be obtained from the opponent when chapter proceeding is started against him under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."
(Emphasis supplied by me)
23. Hence, in light of the aforesaid decisions, the Executive Magistrate does not have the power to issue directions for furnishing of interim bonds in cases u/s. 107/111 Cr.P.C. Hence, even in the present case, which was a case u/s. 107/111 CrPC, the SEM had no power to direct furnishing of interim bonds, and thus, the direction by the SEM to the petitioners to furnish interim bonds was without jurisdiction and illegal, and, as such, the same deserves to be set aside.
24. In any case, the order dated 19.11.2020 by the SEM directing the petitioners to furnish interim bonds was devoid of any reasons and does not show any application of mind. Even on this ground, the direction for furnishing interim bonds deserves to be set aside. It is well settled that orders for furnishing interim bonds u/s. 116(3) Cr.P.C. ought to be reasoned and cannot be non-speaking orders.
25. In Rajesh v. State of Maharashtra, 2006 SCC OnLine Bom 567 : (2006) 5 Mah LJ 243 : (2006) 2 Bom CR (Cri) 199, the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay has held as under:
Gaurav Vashisht & Anr. vs The State of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors Crl. Rev. No. 52/2020 Page No. 30/37 Digitally signed by SATYABRATA SATYABRATA PANDA PANDA Date: 2025.12.18 16:42:48 +0530 "7. Though the incidents of the various proceedings under this Chapter (sections 106 to 110 of the Code) differ in material respects, there is one aspect, namely, that all these proceedings have for their object - the prevention, and not punishment of a crime. The other common aspect of all these proceedings is that they are not obligatory but confer the discretionary power on the specified Court or magistrate to exercise such power in the specified circumstance being an interference with the liberty of the individual, such power must be exercised judicially, and strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down in the relevant sections. The Magistrate must first himself consider that immediate measures are necessary for the prevention of the breach of the peace or the disturbance of the public tranquility or then commission of any offence or for the public safety and then after recording his reasons in writing, direct the person concerned to execute a bond for keeping the peace, etc. until the conclusion of the enquiry. This postulates application of his judicial mind by the Magistrate, whose order is subject to judicial scrutiny by superior Courts of Revision and superintendence. He cannot completely mortgage his decision, or abdicate his power or surrender his own responsibility in favour of the police, though it would be well within his competence, in a given case to take into account the police report for what it is worth in forming his own conclusion on the material legally available to him. But this exercise must indisputably be seen to be done and the order of the Magistrate must clearly reflect the application of the Magistrate's own judicial mind to the facts and circumstances properly placed before him.
However, summary the proceedings under Chapter VIII, Criminal Procedure Code, may be considered, Gaurav Vashisht & Anr. vs The State of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors Crl. Rev. No. 52/2020 Page No. 31/37 Digitally signed by SATYABRATA SATYABRATA PANDA PANDA Date:
2025.12.18 16:42:51 +0530 they are judicial proceedings and have to be conducted in accordance with the Code and the Magistrate holding these proceedings must see that the fundamental elements of the judicial process find expression in the machinery for administering justice. It is clear that an order under sub-section (3) of section 116 of the Code for furnishing of bond can be made only after the commencement of the enquiry and before its completion, provided the allegations forming the basis of the parent proceeding or the allegations leading to the necessity for furnishing of interim bonds are tested by inquiry and judicial mind is applied for ascertaining whether there is prima facie justifiable basis for such a direction. Sub-section (2) of section 116 provides that the inquiry is to be as nearly as practicable in the manner prescribed for conducting trial and recording of evidence in summons cases.
Chapter XX of the Code makes provision for trial of summons cases. Until the allegations are supported by materials so as to satisfy the judicial mind that a direction for bond is called for, no order for furnishing of a bond can be given. Section 116 of the Code of 1973 corresponds to section 117 of the Code of 1898, sub-sections (6) and (7) of the 1973' Code are new provision. Old sub-section (3) commenced with "pending the completion of the enquiry." The new sub-section (3), however, starts with "after the commencement and before the completion of the enquiry." This change has been made so as to put the matter beyond doubt that an interim bond can be called for only after commencement of the enquiry and before its completion. The amendment gives effect to the Supreme Court's decision in Madhu Limaye v. Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Monghyr, (1970) 3 SCC 739 : AIR 1971 SC 2481.
Gaurav Vashisht & Anr. vs The State of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors Crl. Rev. No. 52/2020 Page No. 32/37 Digitally signed by SATYABRATA SATYABRATA PANDA PANDA Date:
2025.12.18 16:42:55 +0530
8. The next important aspect, which has come to our knowledge by examining various record and proceedings from the file of the Executive Magistrate is the manner in which orders are passed under section 111 and section 116(3) of the Code.
We are shocked and surprised to note that so far as the Executive Magistrate of Kotwali Division is concerned, the learned Special Executive Magistrate has got a printed form incorporating both the orders leaving certain margins so as to fill in the blanks/gaps which only go to indicate that the two orders are passed in a rigid manner without application of mind. We are afraid but have no hesitation to observe that this practice and procedure is probably followed by all the Executive Magistrates, who are Police Officers of the rank of the Assistant Commissioner of Police functioning in their respective Division throughout the city of Nagpur. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on seeking instructions has made a statement that this practice would be discontinued forthwith. We may remind the Presiding Officers of the Courts of Executive Magistrates that both the orders i.e. 1) Under section 111 and other under section 116(3) of the Code has to be passed by the learned Magistrate on due application of mind. Insofar as order under section 111 of the Code is concerned, it enjoins upon the Magistrate to make an order in writing, setting forth the substance of information received, the amount of the bond to be executed, term for which it is to be in force, and the number, character and class of sureties (if any required) and the Magistrate can only proceed to pass an order under section 111 of the Code on the basis of substance of the information received by him, which has to be spelt out in the order, which requires that there must be information of a nature which convinces him that Gaurav Vashisht & Anr. vs The State of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors Crl. Rev. No. 52/2020 Page No. 33/37 Digitally signed by SATYABRATA SATYABRATA PANDA PANDA Date:
2025.12.18 16:42:58 +0530 there is likelihood of a breach of peace. The person, who gave information might not be in a position to give details, but the source of information might be sufficient to convince the Magistrate that the breach of the peace was likely and if he was convinced, the law required him to take action. Needless to say, the substance of information must be set forth in the order which depends in each case upon the circumstances of the case. Without an order under section 111 of the Code, the Magistrate has no competence to deal with such person. Insofar the order which is required to be passed under section 116(3) of the Code - The provisions of section 116(3) clearly mention that the order of interim bond should be passed after recording reasons therefor. The Magistrate while acting under sub- section (3) of section 116, Criminal Procedure Code, has to make careful consideration as regards to the separate case of emergency as contemplated under the said section and he must be satisfied that immediate steps are necessary. The fact that the police report indicated that the members of the opposite-party were likely to create breach of the peace is not sufficient to pass an order and it cannot be said that the Magistrate has given a careful consideration to the existence of a case of emergency when he merely relies on a police report without even calling the police officer to the witness box. An order made under sub-section (3) is bad if it is not accompanied by reasons recorded in writing why the Magistrate wants to take the emergency measures."
(Emphasis supplied by me) Gaurav Vashisht & Anr. vs The State of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors Crl. Rev. No. 52/2020 Page No. 34/37 Digitally signed by SATYABRATA SATYABRATA PANDA PANDA Date:
2025.12.18 16:43:05 +0530
26. In Balasaheb v. State of Maharashtra, 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 1167, the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay has held as under:
"26. Time and again this Court has expressed its dis-
pleasure in regard to the manner in which the orders are being passed by the Executive Magistrates under Sections 111 and 116(3) of the Code. In the case of Rajesh Suryabhan Nayak v. State of Maharashtra; [(2006) 2 Bom CR (Cri) 199], the Division Bench of this Court has elaborately discussed and had expressed its disgruntlement in respect of the orders passed by the Executive Magistrates. This Court has held in the said judgment that the provisions of Section 116(3) clearly envisages that the order of interim bond should be passed after recording reasons therefor. The Magistrate while acting under sub section 3 of Section 116 of the Code has to make careful consideration as regards separate case of emergency as contemplated under the said Section and he must be satisfied that immediate steps are necessary. In the instant case, it is quite apparent that the Special Executive Magistrate did not apply his mind at all."
(Emphasis supplied by me)
27. Thus, in view of the aforesaid decisions, even an order by the Executive Magistrate u/s. 116(3) Cr.P.C. for interim bond has to be a reasoned order and must show the application of mind by the Magistrate. In the present case, the order dated 19.10.2020 by the SEM for furnishing interim surety bond was non-speaking and does not give any reasons for the order.
Gaurav Vashisht & Anr. vs The State of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors Crl. Rev. No. 52/2020 Page No. 35/37 Digitally signed by SATYABRATA SATYABRATA PANDA PANDA Date:
2025.12.18 16:43:08 +0530
28. In view of the above discussion, the direction by the SEM to the petitioners to furnish interim surety bonds was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction, and, even otherwise, bad in law being without reasons, and is clearly liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the order dated 19.10.2020 of the SEM directing the petitioners to furnish interim surety bonds is hereby set aside.
29. The order dated 19.10.2020 of the SEM directing for furnishing interim surety bonds having been set aside, the next question which arises is as to whether the matter be remanded back to the SEM for fresh adjudication. However, such a course would serve no fruitful purpose on the present day. As per section 107 CrPC, the show cause notice is for executing a bond which could only be for a period not exceeding 1 year. Further, as per section 116(6) CrPC, the inquiry proceedings u/s. 116 CrPC shall stand terminated if not completed within 6 months unless the Magistrate otherwise directs for special reasons to be recorded in writing. As held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Smt. Christalin Costa v. State of Goa 1992 SCC OnLine Bom 252: (1993) 2 Mah LJ 1409: (1993) 1 Bom CR 688, the extension order could be made only during the subsistence of the 6 months period and not beyond it. In the present case, the period of 6 months for completion of the inquiry proceedings u/s. 116 Cr.P.C. has already elapsed. Further, the show cause notice was in the year 2020 and the bond period itself could not have been for more than 1 year. Now, in the present day, already more Gaurav Vashisht & Anr. vs The State of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors Crl. Rev. No. 52/2020 Page No. 36/37 Digitally signed by SATYABRATA SATYABRATA PANDA PANDA Date: 2025.12.18 16:43:15 +0530 than 5 years have already elapsed since the show cause notice. As such, now as on the date of the present order, no fruitful purpose would be served in remanding the matter for fresh adjudication. Hence, the proceedings before the SEM are held as having lapsed and closed.
30. The revision petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
31. Let a certified copy of the present order be communicated to the office of the concerned SEM with the direction to collect the TCR against due acknowledgment.
32. File be consigned to the record room after the due compliances.
Digitally signed by SATYABRATA SATYABRATA PANDA PANDA Date: 2025.12.18 16:43:18 +0530 (Satyabrata Panda) Addl. Sessions Judge SFTC-01, West District THC/18.12.2025/mk
Gaurav Vashisht & Anr. vs The State of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors Crl. Rev. No. 52/2020 Page No. 37/37