ORDER : A. Badharudeen, J. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘Cr.P.C' for short) to declare that action on the part of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Kozhikode, in completing the committal proceedings in Crime No.17/2024 of Kakkur Police Station without complying the directions of this Court in Crl.M.C No.1411 of 2024 is unlawful. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, who is the accused in Crime No.17/2024 of Kakkur Police Station and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. 3. Summing up the prosecution case, crime was registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 354D(1)(i), 366, 450, 376(2)(n) and 406 of Indian Penal Code (‘IPC' for short), by the accused. The accused moved anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court, Kozhikode. As per Annexure-A2 order in Crl.M.C.No.70/24 dated 20.01.2024, the learned Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail to the accused. The defacto complainant challenged the same before this Court, vide Crl.M.C.No.1411 of 2024 and this Court considered the same and passed Annexure A3 order on 12.04.2024, after referring the decisions of the Apex Court on this point and held in paragraphs 13 and 14 as under: “13. The petitioner doesn't allege that after grant of bail the 2nd respondent did anything to obstruct the investigation in the matter or to harm the petitioner. Hence, for the reason of denial of opportunity to the petitioner of being heard alone and in order to afford an opportunity of being heard to the defacto complainant-petitioner Annexure A3 order is liable to be set aside. However, the jurisdictional court shall consider the application for regular bail to be submitted by the 2nd respondent on his appearance/surrender, on its own merits, and untrammeled by the observations or findings in Annexure A3 order. 14. Accordingly, Annexure A3 is set aside. However, it is ordered that the jurisdictional court shall decide the application for regular bail the 2nd respondent would submit to it on its merits after hearing the defacto complainant and in the light of the observations made herein before, and untrammeled by the observations or findings in Annexure A3 order. It is made clear that until the jurisdictional court decides on the application for regular bail, the 2nd respondent shall continue on bail, provided he was already released on bail in terms of Annexure A3. It is made clear that until the jurisdictional court decides on the application for regular bail, the 2nd respondent shall continue on bail, provided he was already released on bail in terms of Annexure A3. The Crl.M.C is disposed of as above.” 4. As per Annexure-A3 order herein, the jurisdictional court was directed to decide the application for regular bail of the 2nd respondent (accused) after setting aside Annexure-A1 order (Annexure-A3 in Annexure A3 herein) by this Court and it was ordered that till the jurisdictional court takes a decision on this application, the accused should continue on bail, provided, he was already released on bail in terms of Annexure-A3 (A1 herein). 5. Pursuant to Annexure-A3 order herein, CMP.1392/2024 was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Kozhikode, by the defacto complainant and the learned Magistrate considered the petition and thereafter passed an order as under: “17. Point no.(ii): In view of the finding on the point no.(i) the bail granted to the accused on 15.04.2024 is liable to be cancelled. However as argued on behalf of the petitioner that since the Hon'ble High Court permitted the accused to continue on the bail executed in pursuance of the order of the Hon'ble Sessions Court, the accused need not be remanded in judicial custody. Accordingly, the petition is to be allowed to the extent of cancelling the bail. In the result, the bail granted to the accused, vide order in CMP 1312/2024 dated 15.04.2024 by this Court is hereby cancelled. The bail bond executed in pursuance of that order is also cancelled. Since the Honourable High Court of Kerala has permitted the accused to continue on the bail executed in pursuance of the order in Crl.M.P.70/2024, he need not be remanded to judicial custody.” 6. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the order passed by the learned Magistrate permitting the accused to continue on bail executed in pursuance of order in Crl.M.P.70/2024 (A2) and that he need not be remanded to judicial custody, after cancelling the bail. 7. It is strange, rather shocking to note that as per Annexure-A2, anticipatory bail was granted to the accused by the Sessions Court and as per Annexure-A3 order, this Court set aside the said order with direction to the jurisdictional court to decide the application for regular bail of the accused. 7. It is strange, rather shocking to note that as per Annexure-A2, anticipatory bail was granted to the accused by the Sessions Court and as per Annexure-A3 order, this Court set aside the said order with direction to the jurisdictional court to decide the application for regular bail of the accused. However, the learned Magistrate proceeded with the CMP filed for cancellation of bail without reading the order of this Court, whereby the bail was already cancelled and ultimately bail was again cancelled by the learned Magistrate and allowed the accused to continue on bail in pursuance of order in Crl.M.P No.70/2024, i.e Annexure-A2 herein and Annexure-A3 referred in Annexure-A3 order herein. 8. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order of the learned Magistrate allowing the accused to continue on bail in view of the order passed in Crl.M.C.No.70/2024 which, in fact, was set aside by this Court, that too, after cancelling the bail by this Court as per Annexure A3 order, is illegal and the learned Magistrate should have ordered to detain the petitioner in custody. Therefore, such an order is liable to be quashed. 9. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/accused while opposing the prayer candidly argued that as per Annexure A3 order this Court directed consideration of the bail application of the accused by the jurisdictional court and allowed the 2nd respondent to continue on bail, till the disposal of the bail application. Since Annexure-A2 order was passed by the Sessions Court, the jurisdictional court mentioned in Annexure-A3 order is the Sessions Court and not the Magistrate Court and, therefore, the order passed by the learned Magistrate is without jurisdiction. He also would submit that the order of cancellation is illegal and the same would prejudice the right of the accused. Adverting to this aspect, it is observed that the learned counsel is mislead by the facts of the case. That is to say, when this Court directs consideration of regular bail application of the accused, after cancelling the anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court, the jurisdictional court is the Magistrate Court, competent to consider the regular bail application of the accused on his surrender. Thus this argument is not sustainable. 10. The learned Public Prosecutor also pointed out the illegality in the matter of allowing the accused to continue on bail, after cancelling the bail. 11. Thus this argument is not sustainable. 10. The learned Public Prosecutor also pointed out the illegality in the matter of allowing the accused to continue on bail, after cancelling the bail. 11. When appreciating the facts of this case, it emerges that as per the order in Crl.M.C.No.1411/2024 (A3) this Court in paragraph 14 ordered that “accordingly Annexure A3 is set aside”. That means the anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court has been set aside by this Court and this Court ordered that the jurisdictional court has to decide the application for regular bail of the accused on merits. As an interim measure, the accused was allowed to continue on bail in terms of the anticipatory bail order (which was cancelled) until the jurisdictional court decides on the application for regular bail. To be more explicit, the anticipatory bail order (A2), in fact, was set aside by this Court as per Annexure A3 and, therefore, anticipatory bail granted to the 2nd respondent/accused by the learned Magistrate was not available after Annexure A3 order passed on 12.04.2024. At the same time, the learned Magistrate was directed to consider the regular bail of the accused, the learned Magistrate considered the application filed by the defacto complainant to cancel the bail and cancelled the bail which, in fact, cancelled by this Court. 12. The most shocking aspect is that the learned Magistrate cancelled the bail, which was already cancelled by this Court considering the application filed by the defacto complainant. On noticing the serious anomaly in the order passed by the learned Magistrate, the remarks of the learned Magistrate has been called for and she submitted in paragraphs 6 and 7 as under: “6. xxxx xxxx xxxx i) As per order in C.M.P.1392/2024 in C.P.25/2024, the bail granted to the accused on 15.04.2024 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class-III, Kozhikode and the bond executed in terms of that order were cancelled as it was not granted on merits and without hearing the survivor. xxxx xxxx xxxx i) As per order in C.M.P.1392/2024 in C.P.25/2024, the bail granted to the accused on 15.04.2024 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class-III, Kozhikode and the bond executed in terms of that order were cancelled as it was not granted on merits and without hearing the survivor. Because there was a direction by the Honourable High Court of Kerala in the order referred to 3rd above to dispose the regular bail application filed by the accused, on merits after hearing the survivor, but the court as not aware of the said direction and the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala setting aside the bail granted u/s 348 Cr.P.C. ii) In the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in CrlM.C.1141/2024 it was held as follows in paragraph no.14 of that order : “14. Accordingly, Annexure A3 is set aside. However, it is ordered that the jurisdictional court shall decide the application for regular bail, the second respondent would submit to it on its merits after hearing the de facto complainant and in the light of the observations made herein before, and untrammeled by the observation or findings in Annexure A3 order. It is made clear that until the jurisdictional court decides on the application for regular bail, the 2nd respondent shall continue on bail, provided he was already released in bail in terms of Annexure A3.” 7. The accused was already released on bail in terms of Annexure A3 order (Order of the Hon’ble Sessions Court, Kozhikode referred to 2nd above) on 23.01.2024 by the Inspector of Police, Kakkur Police Station when he was arrested on the same day. In view of the direction of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, cited above the said bail bond shall continue till disposal of bail application on merits.” 13. Even on scrutiny of the remarks of the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate lost sight of the fact that the anticipatory bail granted to the accused was cancelled by this Court and the learned Magistrate was directed to consider the regular bail application of the accused. That apart, the learned Magistrate lost sight of the specific direction issued by this Court to consider regular bail application of the accused and this Court not directed the Magistrate to consider cancellation of the anticipatory bail, in fact the same was set aside by this Court. That apart, the learned Magistrate lost sight of the specific direction issued by this Court to consider regular bail application of the accused and this Court not directed the Magistrate to consider cancellation of the anticipatory bail, in fact the same was set aside by this Court. Thus, the learned Magistrate should have directed surrender of the accused and to file regular bail application, instead of cancelling the bail, which was already cancelled by this Court. On evaluating the materials, it is relevant to note that the accused had not filed any application for regular bail even after cancellation of his bail in view of the direction of this Court in Annexure-A3 since in Annexure A3 order this Court did not fix a time frame to file an application by the accused and till this moment, the accused did not file any application seeking regular bail. However, it is interesting to note that the accused also had not raised any challenge regarding Annexure A3 order before the Apex Court or Annexure A4 before this Court. 14. Summing up the events, this Court set aside the anticipatory bail granted to the accused, and therefore subsequent cancellation of the same by the learned Magistrate on the application filed by the defacto complainant can only be termed as wastage of valuable judicial time, by the Magistrate, even without reading the order of this Court. The attitude of the Magistrate is noted with extreme displeasure with direction to the Magistrate to be more cautious in future while passing orders, subsequent to the direction issued by the higher courts, after reading the direction in its letter and spirit. In fact, in view of cancellation of the anticipatory bail application, the petitioner should have surrendered before the trial court and to move an application seeking regular bail, in view of the direction of this Court, within a reasonable time, but the accused cleverly kept silence and has been enjoying the advantage of an interim protection, for a pretty long time, even after cancellation of his bail by this Court. The attitude of the petitioner in a way flouting the spirit of this Court’s order is shocking, rather disobedience of the order of this Court. 15. The attitude of the petitioner in a way flouting the spirit of this Court’s order is shocking, rather disobedience of the order of this Court. 15. To sum up, the learned Magistrate failed to read and understand the verdict of this Court as specifically stated in paragraphs 13 and 14 and considered the application for cancellation of bail, for which there was no direction from this Court. 16. Having held so, the 2nd respondent/accused is directed to surrender before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Kozhikode, within a period of seven days from today and move for regular bail and the learned Magistrate is directed to consider the same purely on merits including her observation in Annexure A4 and taking note of the attitude of the petitioner after passing Annexure A3 order by this Court. In the event his regular bail application will be dismissed, he shall be detained in custody, as per law. 17. It is specifically ordered that, the 2nd respondent can continue on interim bail in terms of Annexure-A3 order only for a period of seven days from today and the order will be not available after a period of seven days from today. The learned Magistrate is specifically directed to complete the committal proceedings only after surrender and consideration of his regular bail application by the learned Magistrate. If the 2nd respondent fails to surrender before the court within seven days from today as directed, the learned Magistrate is directed to issue coercive steps to secure the presence of the 2nd respondent before the court. 18. This petition is accordingly disposed of as above. Registry shall forward a copy of this order to the jurisdictional court for information and further steps.