IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2010 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 192 of 2010() ---------------------------------------- CRIME NO.27/2008 OF EXCISE ENFORCEMENT AND ANTI NARCOTIC SPECIAL SQUAD, PALAKKAD. PETITIONER/ 3RD ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------- JACOB TOMY, S/O.TOMY, AGED 25, THOPPIL, SAHAKARANA ROAD, VYTILLA, COCHIN-19. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.SUNIL RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------ THE EXCISE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, EXCISE ENFORCEMENT AND ANTI NARCOTIC SPECIAL SQUAD PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. SRI. M.S.BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No.192 of 2010 ----------------------------- Dated this the 12th 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 accused No.3 in Crime No.27 of 2008 of Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotic Special Squad, Palakkad. The petitioner apprehends arrest in execution of the non-bailable warrant issued in the case by the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Palakkad. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not arrested during the crime stage and he did not receive any summons from the court after the charge sheet was filed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that after completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed on 30/9/2009 before the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class- I, Palakkad. 4. In Vineeth Somarajan @ Ambadi Vs. State of Kerala [2009(3) KHC 471], it was held that in cases where B.A. No.192 / 2010 2 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 that 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]. In Sukumari Vs. State of Kerala [2001(1) K.L.T.22], it was held that the power under Section 437 can be invoked by the Magistrate even in cases involving a Session offence. Reserving the right of the petitioner to move the court which issued the non bailable warrant, for recalling the warrant and for the grant of bail, this Bail Application is closed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm