Judgment :- 1. The petitioners obtained an order for anticipatory bail from the Sessions Court, Trivandrum. Learned Sessions Judge granted the order on certain conditions. One of the conditions is that the petitioners shall report before the Sub Inspector of Police, Kazhakootam at 10 A. M. on 16-12-1986 (unless arrested and released earlier). Another condition is that the petitioners shall furnish their addresses (at which they can be located) to the police not later than 16-12-1986 Subsequently, the learned Sessions Judge, on a motion in that behalf, has extended the time limit to 20-12-1986. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners raised mainly two contentions. The first is that the Sessions Judge has obviously no power to impose any condition during the pre-bail stage. In other words, the contention is that the conditions imposable are only those which come into effect after the release of the petitioners on bail. The second contention is that due to practical reasons, the period may be further extended for one more week. 3. Regarding the first contention, I may observe that S.438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not contain any restriction that no condition shall be imposed in the order so as to come into effect before the release of the petitioners on bail. S.438(1) of the Code empowers the Sessions Judge and the High Court to pass a direction to release any person on bail in the event of his arrest, provided he applies to the Court in that behalf showing that he is likely to be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence. Sub-section (2) says that "when the High Court or the Court of Sessions makes a direction under sub-section (1) it may include such conditions, in such directions, in the light of the facts of the particular case as it may think fit.". The sub-section is apparently very widely worded and it empowers the Sessions judge or the High Court to impose any condition which the court thinks fit in accordance with the exigencies of the situation. Sometimes, a situation may arise that the accused is absconding and the police may report that it is difficult to apprehend such accused. In some other cases, the police may report that the case is a long pending one and therefore, expeditious steps are warranted. Sometimes, a situation may arise that the accused is absconding and the police may report that it is difficult to apprehend such accused. In some other cases, the police may report that the case is a long pending one and therefore, expeditious steps are warranted. Considering such situations, it is open to the Sessions Judge or the High Court to impose a condition in the order that the person concerned will be released on bail only if he reports to the police on or before a particular date. The Section does not impose any limitation on the power of the Sessions Judge or High Court in the matter of choosing the conditions. The celebrated decision on the subject is Gurbaksh Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1980 SC 1632) wherein Chandrachud, C. J. has observed as follows: "The Court has the power to impose conditions while granting anticipatory bail. The amplitude of judicial discretion which is given to the High Court and the Court of Session, to impose such conditions as they may think fit while granting anticipatory bail, should not be cut down by reading into the statute conditions which are not to be found therein The High Court and the Court of Session to whom the application for anticipatory bail is made ought to be left free in the exercise of their judicial discretion to grant bail if they consider it fit so to do on the particular facts and circumstances of the case and on such conditions as the case may warrant." (Emphasis supplied) 4. The learned Chief Justice also pointed out that no risk is involved in entrusting a wide discretion to the Court of Session and the High Court in granting anticipatory bail. According to him, there is a risk in including the categories of cases in which anticipatory bail may be allowed because life throws up unforeseen possibilities and offers new challenges. "Judicial discretion has to be free enough to be able to take these possibilities in its stride and to meet these challenges." 5. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge was perfectly in order in imposing a condition that the petitioners shall report before the Sub Inspector of Police on the specified date and at the specified time. 6. Learned counsel's next contention is for further extension of time. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge was perfectly in order in imposing a condition that the petitioners shall report before the Sub Inspector of Police on the specified date and at the specified time. 6. Learned counsel's next contention is for further extension of time. I am inclined to grant a further extension of time. Hence the petitioners are directed to report to the Mangalapuram Police Station at any time before 4 P. M. on 29-12-1986. I make it clear that no further extension shall be granted for any reason whatsoever. Crl. M. C. is disposed of as above.