IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2009 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 7121 of 2009() ------------------------------------- C.C. NO. .309/2004 of J.M.F.C.,PAYYANNUR .................... PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------- ISHAQUE AVALATHI, S/O.UMAIMA.A, AGED 40, MOYONKOVVAL, THAYINERI, PAYYANNUR. BY ADVS. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE SRI.ADEEP ANWAR RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION. BY SRI. V. TEKCHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 7121 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of December, 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.309/2004 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Payyannur, which is now numbered as L.P. Case No. 97/2007. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It is stated that at the trial stage, the petitioner was arrested and he was remanded to judicial custody. Later, he was released on bail. The petitioner states that thereafter, he did not receive any summons. He went abroad in search of a job. Now he has come back to India. He came to know that non bailable warrant is pending against him. He apprehends arrest in execution of the non bailable warrant. Hence this application for Anticipatory Bail was filed. B.A. No. 7121 of 2009 2 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. The Court below shall dispose of the Bail Application in accordance with the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions. The Bail Application is accordingly disposed of. Hand over copy to today itself. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln