JUDGMENT Lalitha Kanneganti, J. - This Criminal Revision Case under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') is filed questioning the order dated 30.03.2021 passed in Crl.M.P.No.10 of 2021 in Crl.M.P.No.135094 of 2021 in crime No.113 of 2021 by the learned XII Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Vijayawada, FAC VII Additional District Sessions Judge -cum- IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Vijayawada wherein the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 439 Cr.P.C. praying seeking extention of time for 15 days for complying with the orders of the anticipatory bail application, was dismissed. 2. The case of the petitioners is that they were granted anticipatory bail by order dated 15.03.2021 passed in Crl.M.P.No.135094 of 2021 in connection with crime No.113 of 2021 of Penamaluru Police Station, Vijayawada City registered for the offences under Sections 420, 471, 467 and 468 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. While granting bail the Court below has imposed the following conditions: i. The petitioners/A2 and A3 are directed to surrender before the learned VI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada within one week from the date of this order and on such surrender, the petitioners/A2 and A3 shall be released on their executing personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties for the likesum each to the satisfaction of the VI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. ii. The petitioners/A2 and A3 must not leave Krishna District and they have to surrender their passports if any, before the Court. iii. The petitioners/A2 and A3 are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required and to cooperate in further investigation. iv. The petitioners/A2 and A3 has to furnish their contact phone numbers, E-mail address and details of their permanent address along with proof. v. The petitioners/A2 and A3 were further directed to appear before the Station House Officer, Penamaluru Police Station, Vijayawada, on every Second Saturday till filing of charge sheet. 3. Thereafter as the petitioners could not comply with the conditions they filed Crl.M.P.No.10 of 2021 before the Court below seeking extension of time for 15 days to comply with the said conditions. But the said application was dismissed on the ground that notice was not given to Additional Public Prosecutor. Aggrieved by the same the petitioners are before this Court. 4. But the said application was dismissed on the ground that notice was not given to Additional Public Prosecutor. Aggrieved by the same the petitioners are before this Court. 4. Heard Sri K.V.Ratnakar, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-state. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Court below, without giving an opportunity to the petitioners to serve notice on the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has refused to grant the relief and dismissed the petition. He further submits that there was no deliberate negligence on the part of the learned counsel for the petitioner, but as the counsel was suffering with fever, he could not serve notice in time. He submits that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent-state even if time is extended for complying with the conditions. Hence, prays to allow the revision. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioners have to comply with the conditions which are imposed at the time of granting bail within time and as they failed to comply with the same, the Court below has rightly dismissed the petition. 7. Heard both sides and perused the order impugned. Except stating that notice was not served there is no other reason for refusing to grant the relief as prayed by the petitioners. 8. It is not out of place to state that by not allowing these kinds of extension petitions, some practical difficulty may arise. The Police will face difficulty in arresting the petitioners and even the Magistrate cannot remand the petitioners as anticipatory bail is granted in their favour. It is settled law that when once a bail is granted it has to be cancelled only by following the due process of law. Further if these kinds of extension petitions are not allowed, the accused will file another petition for anticipatory bail, which results in consumption of Court's time. 9. In view of the above and as no prejudice would be caused to the other side, this Court is of the view that the order impugned warrants interference of this Court. 10. Further if these kinds of extension petitions are not allowed, the accused will file another petition for anticipatory bail, which results in consumption of Court's time. 9. In view of the above and as no prejudice would be caused to the other side, this Court is of the view that the order impugned warrants interference of this Court. 10. Accordingly the criminal revision case is allowed by setting aside the order dated 30.03.2021 passed in Crl.M.P.No.10 of 2021 in Crl.M.P.No.135094 of 2021 in crime No.113 of 2021 by the learned XII Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Vijayawada, FAC VII Additional District Sessions Judge -cum- IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Vijayawada and the matter is remanded to the Court below. The Court below shall consider the petition in accordance with law. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.