JUDGMENT D.K Sinha, J.-Though notice has been published that the Interlocutory Applications in the respective Cr.M.Ps. shall be taken up by me (D.K. Sinha) in Court No.9 at 2.15 p.m. but I find that I.A. No. 2188 of 2010 in Cr.M.P. No. 1062 of 2010, I.A. No. 2187 of 2010 in Cr.M.P. No. 1114 of 2010, I.A. No. 2195 of 2010 in Cr.M.P. No. 1136 of 2010 and I.A. No. 2184 of 2010 in CLM.P. No. 1160 of 2010 have been annexed inadvertently by the staff. As such order is being passed only in the aforementioned Interlocutory Applications of the cause title connected with the relevant Criminal Misc. Petitions. 2. All the Interlocutory Applications aforementioned have been preferred by the petitioner for the modification in the orders dated 8.9.2010 and 17.9.2010 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court with certain observations. While dealing with Interlocutory Applications in the respective Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions referred to above a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court observed.- "Considering the entire facts and circumstances, the impugned orders passed by the learned C.J.M. in each of these cases whereby warrant of arrest and process under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. were issued against the petitioner, are hereby quashed. The petitioner is directed to appear before the court below within 15 days from the date of this order, and in cases in which he had obtained bail, he shall furnish bail bond for the same amount on which he was enlarged on bail on the previous occasion. In the remaining cases in which he is yet to appear, he shall appear before the court below and pray for his bail and such prayer shall be considered by the concerned Magistrate on merits of the case without being prejudiced by the earlier impugned orders passed in the cases." 3. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Dey submitted that by the aforesaid order, the petitioner was directed to appear before the court below within 15 days from the date of the order in those cases in which he could not obtain bail but the petitioner was prevented by sufficient means and unavoidable circumstances as he was suffering from Urinary Tract Infection since 2.9.2010 much prior to the recording of the order• in all the Misc. Petitions on 8.9.2010. He was seeking advice from Dr. Petitions on 8.9.2010. He was seeking advice from Dr. R.N. Prasad time to time at Bokaro, as such, he could not appear in the Court within time framed. 4. Advancing his argument, the learned Sr. Counsel, further submitted that it would be relevant to mention that the petitioner had agitated before this Court by filing several Interlocutory Applications in the respective Criminal Misc. Petitions referred to hereinbefore with the prayer for modification of the order dated 8.9.2010 for extension of time to enable the petitioner to surrender himself before the court below. It was further stated that there were altogether 13 cases pending against him and in each case he had to file appearance and therefore, it would take sufficient time. Considering these all points a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.9.2010 observed.- "Even though there will be 13 cases pending against the petitioner but the petitioner could very well file his appearance within the 15 days' period, stipulated by this Court in its order dated 8.9.2010. There is no reasonable ground for extension of time. The prayer for extension of period .vide the aforementioned Interlocutory Applications in all the aforementioned cases, is hereby refused." 5. Learned Sr. Counsel further pointed out that Urinary Tract Infection of the petitioner was persisting during the pendency of such Interlocutory Applications and even during final order was passed disposing of such petitions. However, the petitioner was not at all in a position to appear before the Court and when he was declared fit, he immediately filed Interlocutory Applications before this Court on 20.12.2010 for consideration of extension of time as his physical conditions due to infection prevented him to comply the observation of the Court. The petitioner, therefore, invoked and urged for sympathetic consideration on his applications for grant of at least two weeks' time enabling for his surrender/appearance in the court below. 6. Learned A.P.P. opposed the contention and submitted that the petitioner did not surrender within time framed and his earlier Interlocutory Applications were refused by this Court. 7. The petitioner, therefore, invoked and urged for sympathetic consideration on his applications for grant of at least two weeks' time enabling for his surrender/appearance in the court below. 6. Learned A.P.P. opposed the contention and submitted that the petitioner did not surrender within time framed and his earlier Interlocutory Applications were refused by this Court. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, taking the considered view on the medical ground upon perusal of the xerox copy of the medical prescription (Annexure-B) with I.A. No. 2788 of 2010, I find that the prayer of the petitioner reasonably requires consideration but with the direction to the petitioner to surrender/appear before the court below positively by 15.1.2011 and thereby the order dated 8.9.2010 recorded by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the record of Cr.M.P. No. 1062 of 2010 analogous-to other petitions are modified in paragraph No.7 of the said order in the manner indicated above and that no petition in the future for extension of time shall be entertained. 8. Accordingly, all the nine Interlocutory Applications are disposed of. 9. Let the order be communicated through "FAX" on the cost deposited by the petitioner separately in all the Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions.