Reply 111crpc.docx

.ml

1. Date: 04/07/2022
To,
The Hon’ble Executive Magistrate
Sadar Division, Nagpur City

Sub: Reply to the notice issued u/s.111 CrPC dated 19/03/2022,
received by us on 21/06/2022.

Respected Madam,
I the undersigned, had been initially issued notice by the
Sadar Police Station on 19/03/2022, directing to attend the
proceedings purportedly initiated u/s. 107, 116(3) CrPC, before
you on 13/04/2022. It appears that the present proceedings are an
off-shoot of a Non-Cognizable Report No.0059/2022 dated
19/02/2022 registered with the Sadar Police Station by one Sameer
Salim Khan.
It is submitted that, I the undersigned had attended the
proceedings before you as directed on 13/04/2022. I have
endeavoured to honestly assist you in every possible way in your
inquiry under the said proceedings, to the best of our ability.
On 13/04/2022, when I presented myself in your office, the
desk officer physically placed in my hands the present notice
under, issued u/s.111 CrPC, inter-alia asking to show cause as to

2. why a bond of Rs.10,000/- for a period of one year and an
equivalent surety, should not be called upon to be furnished by me.
At the outset, it is pertinent to state here that the aforesaid
notice u/s.111 CrPC, are strangely back-dated. Though, the Notice
is dated 19/03/2022 and requires me to furnish my reply by
13/04/2022, the same was in fact handed over to me physically
only on 21/06/2022 by an officer at your office, when I had come
to attend the proceedings as directed. Despite I having presented
myself at your office, I was never served with the notice under
reply at any point. I came to realise the said mistake/mischief of
back dated notices only after I returned home from your office. It
is for this reason that my present reply is being furnished today. I
hereby give my reply to the said notice as under:

Preliminary Objections
1. It is submitted that, I not being very educated, coming from
a backward class and poor strata of the society, do not understand
the relevance, contents and consequence of the notice under reply.
The said notice was neither read over to me nor the substance of
the said notices was explained to me by anyone at your office,
which is the mandate of Section 112 of CrPC.
2. In my respectful submission, I ought not to be insisted for
furnishing any bond whatsoever by your office in proceedings
initiated u/s.107, 116(3) of CrPC. A bare reading of the proviso (a)

3. to Section 116(3) makes it abundantly clear that, “no person
against whom proceedings are NOT being taken under sections
108, 109 or 110 shall be directed to execute a bond for
maintaining good behaviour”. It is apparent that the present
proceedings have been, rightly or wrongly, initiated against me
u/s.107. It is for this reason alone that, I shall not be directed to
furnish any bond whatsoever u/s.116(3) of CrPC. I am annexing
herewith a judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, Nagpur
Bench, passed in the case of Rajesh Nayak v. State of Maharashtra
reported in 2006 (5) Mh.L.J 243, to substantiate my stand, in
which The Hon’ble High Court had expressly deprecated such
practice of insisting upon bonds in proceedings u/s.107 and had
passed strict directions to the police for its compliance. Kindly find
attached the said judgment as Document No.1 for your ready
reference.
Without prejudice to the preliminary objections and what
has been stated above, my reply to your notice is as under:
Reply
3. It is submitted that, I am honest, law abiding, hard working
with no criminal antecedents. As you are already aware by now,
the genesis of the dispute between the complainant in NCR
69/2022 and
7. From the aforesaid narration, it would be apparent that, the
undersigned are completely innocent and it is Pritam Khandate and

4. his wife Sushma Khandate who are harassing our family. We are
law abiding, hard working poor people living in the said house
since 1981, without any criminal antecedents. We therefore pray
that, the said notice under reply be withdrawn forthwith and the
proceedings initiated against us u/s.107, 116(3) be dismissed. We
also pray that strict action may kindly be taken against Pritam
Khandate and his wife Sushma Khandate for trying to disrupt the
harmony and peace in the vicinity and constantly harassing us.
As already state above, the proviso (a) to S.116(3) of CrPC
prohibit insistence of any Bond or surety from any person against
whom proceedings are not being taken under sections 108, 109 or
110 of CrPC. Admittedly, the present proceedings are under s.107
and therefore no such bond is required to be insisted upon from us.
Hence this Reply.

Sincerely,

1. Gopal Narayan Bonde

2. Manmohan (Bablu) Narayan Bonde

3. Malti Manmohan Bonde