IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6849 of 2009() -------------------------------------- CC.1088/2007 of J.M.F.C.-III,THRISSUR CRIME NO.496/2007 OF OLLUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR. .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------- SHIJU, S/O.JOHN, AGED 29 YEARS, NIRAPPELKUDIYIL HOUSE, VETTUKAD POST, TRISSUR-14. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT-STATE: ----------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. TEKCHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 6849 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of November, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in C.C. No.1088/2007 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-III, Thrissur. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 417 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner was working in Dubai. He came back to India only in November, 2009. It is submitted that the petitioner did not receive summons from the trial court. Now a non-bailable warrant has been issued by the court to arrest the petitioner. The petitioner apprehends arrest in execution of the non-bailable warrant. Therefore, this application for anticipatory bail has been filed. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the disputes between the parties have been settled. 5. In Vineeth Somarajan @ Ambadi Vs. State of B.A. No.6849/2009 2 Kerala [2009(3)KHC 471], it was held that in cases where non- bailable warrant is issued by a court, the proper remedy of the accused is to approach that court which issued the warrant and to apply for recalling that warrant and for the grant of bail. It was also observed in Vineeth Somarajan's case that when such an application for bail is filed, the same has to be considered in the light of the principles laid down in Biju Vs. State of Kerala [2007(2) K.L.T 280]. 6. Reserving the right of the petitioner to move the court which issued warrant, to recall the warrant and to grant bail, this Bail Application is closed. The petitioner would be free to submit before the court that the disputes between the parties have been settled. When an application for recalling the warrant and for bail are filed, the court shall consider the same in the light of the principles mentioned in the aforesaid decisions. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm