IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2011 / 27TH ASWINA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 8682 of 2011 CRIME NO.578 OF 2008 OF VADANAPPILLY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR. C.C.NO.1450 OF 2008 OF JFCM, CHAVAKKAD. PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- JACOB, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. CHINNAN, VADAKKAN VEEDU, CHITTATTUKARA DESOM, ELAVALLY VILLAG, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (578/2008 OF VADANAPPILLY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.K.RANJITH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Bail Appl. NO. 8682 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of October, 2011 O R D E R The petitioner apprehends arrest in execution of a non-bailable warrant in C.C.No.1450 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chavakkad. The case arose out of Crime No.578 of 2008 of Vadanappilly Police Station, Thrissur District, for an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that the petitioner was employed in Mumbai and he was not aware of the summons issued to him and about the pendency of the case. Though the petitioner moved an application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court, that application was dismissed by Annexure I order dated 28.9.2011. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed this application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. 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, BAIL APPL. NO.8682 OF 2011 :: 2 :: 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). In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Bail Application is closed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court which issued the warrant to recall the warrant and to grant bail. When an application for bail is filed by the petitioner, the learned Magistrate shall consider the same in the light of the principles laid down in Vineeth Somarajan's case. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/