IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 4TH ASWINA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 7946 of 2011() ----------------------------- LPC.38/2010 of DISTRICT COURT, KASARAGOD CRIME NO.299/2006 OF MANJESHWAR POLICE STATION KASARAGOD DISTRICT .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED : -------------------- NAZIR, S/O.C.P.MUHAMMED, AZIZ MANZIL, HIDAYATH NAGAR, UPPALA VILLAGE & POST, KASARAGOD TALUK & DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.JIJI RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY RANGE OFFICER, MANJESHWAR POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.No.7946 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of September, 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.3 in Crime No.299 of 2006 of Manjeshwar Police Station, which is now pending as L.P.C.No.38 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Sessions Judge, Kasaragod. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 341 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i) (x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. It is stated that the petitioner was granted bail at the crime stage. It is stated that the matter is now pending as L.P.C.No.38 of 2010 on the file of the court of the Sessions Judge, Kasaragod. Non-bailable warrant was issued against the petitioner and the petitioner apprehends arrest in execution of the non-bailable warrant. 4. In Vineeth Somarajan @ Ambady v. State of Kerala (2009 (3) KHC 471), it was held that where non- Bail Appln.No.7946/2011 : 2 : 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 learned Magistrate 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 warrant, to recall the warrant and to grant bail, the Bail Application is closed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE skj True copy P.A. to Judge