IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2010 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 1221 of 2010() ---------------------------------- CRMP.4612/2009 of DISTRICT COURT, KASARAGOD CP.119/2009 of J.M.F.C.-II,HOSDRUG Cr.No. 58/2007 HOSDURG EXCISE RANGE .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED : --------------------------- PREETHA, W/O.T.V.SASI, RESIDING AT MAYYANGANAM, PARAPPAVILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.T.SUDHAMANI RESPONDENT/COMPLIANTANT: ------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. P.S.SALIM, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 1221 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of March, 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 C.P. No.119/2009 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Hosdurg. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 13.12.2007, the petitioner was found in possession of 15 litres of wash. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed in the case on 14.11.2009. Now the case is pending as C.P. No. 119/2009 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Hosdurg. 4. It is stated that non bailable warrant was issued by the learned Magistrate against the petitioner for her arrest. The petitioner apprehends arrest in execution of the non bailable warrant. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this application for anticipatory bail. B.A. No. 1221 / 2010 2 5. 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]. 6. In Sukumari Vs. State of Kerala [2001 (1) KLT.22], it was held that the power under Section 437 can be invoked by the Magistrate even in cases involving an offence exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions. 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 ln