IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6467 of 2009() ---------------------------------------- CC.121/2006 of SPL.J.M.F.C. FOR TRIAL OF MARADU CASES, KOZHIKODE CRIME NO.191/2005 OF FEROKE POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE. .................... APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1: ------------------------------------------ MOHAMMED HANEEFA, S/O. ABDUL RAZACK, THADATHIL HOUSE, MARAKKARA, KADAMPUZHA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92) SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING S.I. OF POLICE, FEROKE POLICE STATION. SRI. TEKCHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 6467 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th 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 first accused in Crime No.191/2005 of Feroke Police Station, which is now pending as C.C. No.121/2006 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-V, Kozhikode. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 403,405, 420 and 425 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. After completing the investigation , charge was laid in the case on 31/3/2006. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not appear before court as he was employed in Tamil Nadu. Non bailable warrant was issued by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner apprehends arrest in execution of the non bailable warrant. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the disputes and differences between the parties have B.A. No. 6467 / 2009 2 been settled. Annexure A affidavit sworn to by the de facto complainant is relied on in support of this contention. 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 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]. Reserving the right of the petitioner to move the learned Magistrate for recalling the warrant and for the grant of bail, this Bail Application is closed. If such an application is filed, the learned Magistrate shall consider the same in the light of the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions and also taking note of the contention that the disputes have been settled between the parties. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm