IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 504 of 2011() ------------------------ SC NO.466/2007 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-III) KOLLAM PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. EMILDA SYRASS, W/O.SYRASS, AGED 60 YEARS, SANROSE JOYS BHAVAN, 31/621 (47/1468), PUNNATHALA CHERRY, KOLLAM CORPORATION, KOLLAM. 2. JACOB, S/O.ANTONY, AGED 43 YEARS, 225, NEW COLONY, KAIKULANGARA WEST WARD, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.SATISH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALLITHOTTAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.504 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of February, 2011. ORDER Petitioners are sureties of accused No.2 in S.C.No.466 of 2007 pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-III) Kollam. At the time of committal accused No.2 was not available. Hence case against other accused was committed. It would appear that when the case against other accused was pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, committal court issued non bailable warrant to accused No.2 and thereon accused No.2 approached this Court with B.A.No.8516 of 2010 seeking anticipatory bail. This Court passed Annexure-A1, order where it was observed that there is no reason why accused No.2 should not appear before the court below and seek regular bail. Accordingly accused No.2 appeared before the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (wherefrom, I am told, no warrant has been issued to accused No.2) and by Annexure-A5, order obtained bail. When the sureties were to execute bond the Bench Clerk of that court pointed out that there is no warrant issued from that court to accused No.2. Thereon accused No.2 is said to have filed Annexure-A4, petition to cancel the bail granted to him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge so that he could appear before the committal court and seek bail . Learned counsel says that Annexure-A4, petition has not so far been disposed of. In the meantime, petitioners are not interested in continuing as sureties of accused No.2 before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc- Crl.MC No.504/2011 2 III), Kollam. It is therefore prayed that the petitioners may be discharged as sureties. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Proper remedy available to the petitioners is to approach the court concerned and request to discharge them as sureties as provided under law. It is open to the petitioners to request learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc- III), Kollam to pass appropriate orders on Annexure-A4, petition filed by accused No.2. 3. There is no reason why this Court should interfere under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Without prejudice to the right of petitioners to seek discharge of their suretyship in the appropriate court as provided under law, this petition is closed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks