IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 12TH APRIL 2011 / 22ND CHAITHRA 1933 CRL.MC.NO. 1249 OF 2011() ----------------------------------------- CMP.923/2011 OF SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKOE PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ------------------------------------ 1. ELLATH NUAMAN, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.KUNHABDULLA, KUMMAMKODE, NADAPURAM P.O., VADAKARA TALUK. 2. CHENACHAMKANDY UBAID, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.MASHOOD, KUMMAMKODE, NADAPURAM P.O., VADAKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE --------------------------------------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NADAPURAM POLICE STATION. 2. STATE REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.1249 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 12th day of April, 2011 O R D E R Petitioners are accused in Crime No.723 of 2010 of Nadapuram Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. They moved the learned Sessions Judge, Kozhikode with Crl. M.C. No.19 of 2011 seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”). Learned Sessions Judge vide common order dated 17.01.2011 granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners but limited the duration of the bail for a period of two weeks from the date of the order. Later petitioners filed C.M.P. No.923 of 2011 for extension of time for execution of the bond. That petition was dismissed. Hence this proceeding. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. It is seen from Annexure-I, order that the said order was to remain in force only for two weeks from the date of that order which period has already expired by the time petitioners filed C.M.P. No.923 of 2011. Learned counsel has pointed out that CRL.M.C. No.1249 of 2011 -: 2 :- in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mahetre v. State of Maharashtra (2010 (4) KLT 930), anticipatory bail could not have been limited for any specific period. However there was no challenge to Annexure-I, order directing that the said order will remain in force (only) for a period of two weeks. Since that period has expired already the remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the learned Sessions Judge with a fresh application under Sec.438 of the Code. Without prejudice to the right of petitioners to approach the learned Sessions Judge with a fresh application under Sec.438 of the Code notwithstanding the order on C.M.P. 923 of 2011 this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is closed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv