IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH (29TH) DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Crl.P.No.10777 of 2010 Between: Kairam Appa Rao … Petitioner And: The State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Crl.P.No.10777 of 2010 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the docket order dated 09.09.2010 in PRC No.16 of 2010 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kovvur, wherein, the learned Magistrate directed the petitioner-accused to obtain bail from the competent Court under Section 209 Cr.P.C. to enable him to commit the case to the Court of Sessions. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. Perused the record. 3. It is stated that previously the accused filed Crl.P.No.10736 of 2009 seeking to quash the FIR in Cr.No.189 of 2009 of Daverapalli PS and this Court while disposing of the said case at the admission stage, directed not to arrest the accused till the charge sheet is filed. Subsequently, after investigation, charge sheet was filed and the same was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate and summons was issued for appearance of the accused. The accused did not appear before the trial Court but entered appearance through his counsel, who filed Crl.M.P.No.9491 of 2010 for condoning the absence of the accused and the same was allowed on 09.09.2010. At the same time, the learned Magistrate also directed the accused to obtain bail from the competent Court under Section 209 Cr.P.C. 4. In a decision in ‘Guddanti Narasimha Rao vs. The State of A.P., and another’ in Crl.P.No.9099 of 2010, this Court by order dated 17.09.2010 held that ‘in every case triable by Court of Session unless the accused is arrested and is in judicial custody, the question of his obtaining bail from the Sessions Court does not arise and while committing the case it is enough on the part of the committing Magistrate to bind over the accused with or without sureties undertaking to appear before the Sessions Court till the conclusion of the trial.’ 5. In the present case, the accused has not appeared before the trial Court, but his absence was condoned by the trial Court. Admittedly, the accused has not executed any bonds for his appearance so far. 6. Under those circumstances, the petitioner/accused is directed to appear before the trial Court within two weeks from today and execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kovvur, to appear before the said Court and the same bonds hold good for his appearance before the Sessions Court during trial and till the disposal of the case. 7. In the result, the criminal petition is disposed of with the above direction. ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 29.10.2010 bss