IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2010 / 24TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 7443 of 2009() ------------------------------------------ (C.P.NO.97/2009 OF JFCM COURT AT KODUNGALORE TRICHUR DISTRICT) PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1: ------------------------------------------- MANOJ, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.MOHANAN, OTTARATT (H), P.O.ERIYAD, KODUNGALLORE THALUK. BY ADV. MR.V.JOHN SEBASTIAN RALPH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR./TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 7443 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of January, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.1 in C.P.No.97/2009(Crime No.95/2008 of Kodungallur Police Station) on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kodungallur. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed on 15.08.2009. The case is now pending as C.P. No. 97/2009 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kodungallur. It is stated that a non bailable warrant was issued against the petitioner. The petitioner apprehends arrest in execution of a non bailable warrant. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the investigation stage, the petitioner was not arrested B.A. No. 7443 of 2009 2 and he did not receive summons from the Court. It is also submitted that if the petitioner appears before the Magistrate's Court, there is every likelihood that the petitioner will be remanded. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner was not arrested during the crime stage as he was not available. 6. In Vineeth Somarajan @ Ambadi Vs. State of 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 the 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]. Reserving the right of the petitioner to move the Court which issued the non bailable warrant, to recall the warrant and to grant bail, this Bail Application is closed. If the petitioner files B.A. No. 7443 of 2009 3 an application for the said purpose, the learned Magistrate shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law and in the light of the decisions referred to above. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln