IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 11TH BHADRA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 2727 of 2010() ------------------------- CMP.3806/2010 of JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, HOSDRUG .................... PETITIONER / RESPONDENT-ACCUSED --------------------------------- K.RAMSHAD, SON OF ABOOBACKER, AGED 22 YEARS, POOCHOL.P.O., VADAKKE THRIKKARIPOOR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH RESPONDENT : PETITIONER-STATE ------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-31. BY SRI.P.A.SALIM, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2727 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner, the accused in Crime No.386/2010 of Chandera Police Station, was granted bail by Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Hosdrug. The case was registered for the offence under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, police altered the offences to one under Sections 326 and 308 of Indian Penal Code. The Station House Officer, Chandera Police Station filed C.M.P.No. 3806/2010 before the Magistrate for a direction to the petitioner to apply for bail for the altered offences. By Annexure-A1 order, learned Magistrate directed the petitioner to apply for bail for the newly added offences. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-A1 order contending that learned Magistrate should have followed the decision of this Court in Biju v. State of Kerala (2002 (2) KLT CRMC 2727/10 2 495) and should not have followed the decision in Thomas v. State of Kerala (2008 (3) KLT 248) and therefore, the order is illegal and is to be quashed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Though learned counsel appearing for the petitioner sought to convince me that there is conflict in the two decisions, I cannot agree with the submission. In Biju's case (supra), this Court held that bail already granted can only be cancelled on specific grounds, as per the provisions provided under Code of Criminal Procedure. In Thomas's case (supra), this Court held that when a grievous offence is added subsequent to granting of bail for a lessor offence, the accused has to apply for bail for the newly added offences. Learned Magistrate followed the decision in Thomas's case (supra). The order is perfectly legal. I find no reason to interfere with CRMC 2727/10 3 Annexure-A1 order. 4. Learned counsel then submitted that as petitioner did not appear as directed, a non bailable warrant was issued and if petitioner appears and files an application for bail, it is likely that he would be remanded. I cannot agree with the submission that leaned Magistrate will not consider the application for bail on merits. Learned Magistrate shall consider the application for bail in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders without delay. Petition is dismissed. 2nd September, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv