IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5893 of 2009 S.C.NO.514 OF 2008 OF SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR CRIME NO. 16 OF 2007 OF VADANAPPALLY POLICE STATION PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ SIDHIQUL AKBAR,S/O.AHAMMED, POKKAKKILLATH HOUSE,VADANAPPALLY AMSOM, THRITHALLOOR DESOM,CHAVAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ RESPONDENT: STATE -------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTE BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 5893 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of February, 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 accused No.3 in SC No.514 of 2008 of the Sessions Court, Thrissur. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 3(1)(viii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case was initiated on a complaint filed by the de facto complainant before the Magistrate's Court. The complaint was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the crime was registered. It is pointed out that in the complaint, the name of the petitioner is not shown as an accused. However, during investigation, his name B.A. NO. 5893 OF 2009 :: 2 :: was also added as accused by the investigating officer. During the crime stage, the petitioner was granted bail. Thereafter, he went abroad in search of a job. It is submitted that he did not receive any summons issued by the Sessions Court. He came back to India in September, 2009. At that time he realised that a non-bailable warrant was pending against him. He apprehends arrest and, therefore, he has filed this application for anticipatory bail. 4. 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 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). B.A. NO. 5893 OF 2009 :: 3 :: 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 ahz/