IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2011 / 22ND ASHADHA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 5507 of 2011 CRIME NO.213 OF 2008 OF THRIKUNNAPUZHA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA PETITIONER: ACCUSED: -------------------- RAJESH, AGED 31 YEARS S/O.RAJENDRAN @ PONNAPPAN RAJENDRAN PUNNIYASHAM PARAMBIL @ THAITHARAYIL, KOTTEMURI, THRIKKUNNAPUZHA PO, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.MADHUSUDHANAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: --------------- 1. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM 682 031. 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER THRIKKUNNAPPUZHA POLICE STATION (CR.NO.213 OF 2008) ALAPUZHA DISTRICT 690 515. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V,TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Bail Appl. NO. 5507 OF 2011 E ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of July, 2011 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 Crime No.213 of 2008 of Thrikunnapuzha Police Station, which is now pending as L.P.No.2 of 2010, on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class I, Haripad. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 323, 452 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It is stated that since the petitioner did not appear, the case was treated as long pending. It is also stated that non-bailable warrant was issued against the petitioner. The petitioner apprehends arrest in execution of the non-bailable warrant issued against him. 4. In Vineeth Somarajan @ Ambady v. State of Kerala (2009 (3) KHC 471), it was held that where non-bailable warrant is issued by BAIL APPL. NO.5507 OF 2011 :: 2 :: 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). In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Bail Application is disposed of 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/