IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2010 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1902 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.34/2000 OF PARASSALA POLICE STATION PETITIONER (S): ACCUSED -------------------- CHRISTUDAS, S/O.MATHEWS, KUZHIVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, MULLUVILA, PARASALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.VINOD J.DEV SRI.PRAMOD J.DEV RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR, PARASSALA POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.KAMAPPU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.1902 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of April, 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 the accused in Crime No.34 of 2000 of Parassala Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. 3. During the crime stage, the petitioner was arrested and he was released on bail. Thereafter, he absconded. The case of the petitioner is that he went to Chennai in search of a job. The case is now pending as C.P.No.65 of 2004 on the file of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Neyyattinkara. Since the petitioner had not appeared in the case, non bailable warrant was issued against him. The petitioner apprehends arrest in execution of the non bailable warrant issued against him. Therefore, he has moved this application for anticipatory bail. 4. In Vineeth Somarajan @ Ambady vs. State of BA No.1902/2010 2 Kerala (2009(3) KHC 471), it was held that in cases where non bailable warrant is issued by the court, normally, the person against whom the warrant is issued has to approach the court which issued the warrant for re-calling the warrant and for the grant of bail. He cannot, normally, straight away approach the High Court invoking Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was also noticed in that decision that when such an application for bail is filed, the learned Magistrate has to dispose of the Bail Application in the light of the principles laid down in Biju vs. State of Kerala (2007(2) KLT 280). 5. In Sukumari v. State of Kerala (2001 (1) KLT 22) it was held that the Magistrate has jurisdiction to grant bail even in respect of an offence exclusively triable by a court of Session. 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. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl