IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 9254 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.335 OF 2002 OF KILIMANOOR POLICE STATION PETITIONER/5TH ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------- SHOJILAL, S/O.DAMODARAN, POLLINGAL VEEDU, AAROOR, PONGANADU, KOLIMANOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P.SRI.R.RANJITH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------- B.A.No.9254 OF 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of November, 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is stated that the petitioner is the 5th accused in Crime No.335 of 2002 of Kilimanoor Police Station. 2.The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 9(b) of the Explosives Act. 3. It is stated that the petitioner was enlarged on bail at the crime stage and that he did not receive any summons after the final report was submitted. It is also stated that accused Nos.1 to 4 were acquitted and the case against the petitioner was split up and re-filed as C.C.No.356 of 2009. B.A.No. 9254 OF 2011 2 4. The petitioner apprehends arrest in execution of the non bailable warrant issued by the Court and therefore, he has filed this bail application for anticipatory bail. 5. In Vineeth Somarajan @ Ambady v. State of Kerala (2009(3) KHC 471), it was held that where non-bailable warrant is issued by the court on account of non-appearance of the accused, 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 by filing a Bail Application under 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 court has to dispose of the Bail Application in the light of the principles laid down in Biju v. State of Kerala (2007(2) KLT 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. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms