IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2010 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4385 of 2010() ------------------------------------- CRL.MP.2369/2010 IN CRL.MC.408/2010 OF SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE. .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------- 1. AFSAL. M., AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.KOYA, MOOTHADAKATTU HOUSE, KUNNAMANGALAM AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. NISSAR K.K., AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.SAIDALAVI, KUTTIKATTIL HOUSE, KUNNAMANGALAM AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, SRI.HANSON.P.MATHEW. RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. S.I. OF POLICE, KUNNAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.P.A. SALIM. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.4385 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 10th December, 2010 O R D E R Petitioners were granted anticipatory bail by Sessions Judge, Kozhikode on 9/4/2010 by Annexure-A order directing him to execute a bond with two solvent sureties before the investigating officer and to appear on all Mondays before the investigating officer, till the final report is filed. It is also made clear that the order will be in force for a period of two weeks and in the meantime petitioners to avail regular bail from the concerned court. Petitioners did not appear before the investigating officer, did not execute a bond and did not comply with the conditions. Crl.M.P.2369/2010 was Crmc 4385/10 2 subsequently filed, for extension of time contending that as petitioners were in Maharashtra due to their employment, they could not comply with the order within the specified time and therefore, sought to extent the time. By Annexure-B order, learned Sessions Judge dismissed the petition. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that as declared by the Honourable Supreme Court, anticipatory bail cannot be for a small duration and in such circumstances, direction in Annexure-A order that it will be in force for a period of two Crmc 4385/10 3 weeks is illegal. I do not find that even if that provision is illegal, it would make any difference in the case. 4. Petitioners were granted anticipatory bail on conditions. They were directed to appear before the investigating officer, execute a bond and thereafter appear before the investigating officer on every Monday. They admittedly did not execute a bond and did not appear before the investigating officer. In such circumstances, the duratuib if the period provided under Annexure-A order is not very relevant as petitioner avail the benefit of Annexure-A order, without executing a bond. In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with Annexure-B order. 5. But considering the facts of the case, petitioners are granted liberty to Crmc 4385/10 4 appear before the investigating officer within ten days from today. On such appearance, the investigating officer shall interrogate them and effect recovery, if any and thereafter produce them before the learned Magistrate on the same day. In that event, learned Magistrate to consider the application for bail and pass orders on the same day. It is made clear that fact that an offence under Section 308 of Indian Penal Code is incorporated, will not prevent the learned Magistrate to grant bail. Petition is disposed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.