IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2011 / 21ST POUSHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 60 of 2011() ----------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.408/2010 OF SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE CRIME NO.500/2009 OF KUNNAMANGALAM POLICESTATION, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER(S): IST ACCUSED -------------------------- RIYAS BAVUTTY.T.V., AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.KOYA, NOCHIKKATTIL HOUSE, KUNNAMANGALAM AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNNAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA FOR R1 & R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.60 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of January, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.500 of 2009 of Kunnamangalam Police Station, Kozhikode for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324 and 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner and others approached the learned Sessions Judge, Kozhikode with Crl.M.C.No.408 of 2010 under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”) and got a favourable order (Annexure-A)but limiting the life of the anticipatory bail granted thereby to two weeks from the date of the order and directing that in the meantime petitioner should seek regular bail from the court concerned. Since some of the accused were not able to comply with the condition they approached this Court with Crl.M.C.No.4385 of 2010 and this Court by order dated 10.12.2010 (Annexure-B) issued certain directions to the Investigating Officer and the learned Magistrate. Petitioner was not able to comply with the direction in Annexure-A, order passed by learned Sessions Judge. Now he seeks indulgence of this Court to give similar order like Annexure-B. Learned counsel submits that petitioner is now under threat of arrest. Going by Annexure-A, order, it is in force since the order specifically states that it is valid for two weeks from the date of order. Petitioner can therefore move fresh application for anticipatory bail in the court of learned Sessions Judge. Having regard to the circumstances stated, I am inclined to Crl.M.C.No.60/2011 2 grant three weeks time from this day to the petitioner to move appropriate application before the learned Sessions Judge for anticipatory bail or application for bail before the learned Magistrate if petitioner is so advised. If during the said period of three weeks petitioner is arrested, he will be released on executing bond for `.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each. If any application for anticipatory bail or regular bail is filed, the court concerned shall dispose of the application on merit having regard to the circumstances of the case and also considering the earlier order passed in the case. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks