IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2011 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 8717 of 2011() ----------------------------- IN L.P.NO.12/11 IN C.C.NO.1083/2010 IN CRIME NO.11/03 OF VATANAPPILLY POLICE STATION ON THE FILE OF J.F.C.M., CHAVAKKAD .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2: ----------------------------------- RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.RAGHAVAN, KURUVANGATTIL HOUSE, MANALUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S.I OF POLICE, VATANAPPILLY POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.K.RAJEEV THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A.No.8717 of 2011 --------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2011 O R D E R The petitioner is accused No.2 in L.P.No.12 of 2011 in C.C.No.1083 of 2010 on the file of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chavakkad. The crime was registered in 2003 as Crime No.11 of 2003 of Vatanappilly Police Station for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. It is stated that the court took cognizance of the case only in 2010 and the case was taken on file as C.C.No.1083 of 2010. It is stated in paragraph 2 of the Bail Application thus : “2) It is humbly submitted that the petitioner is working at Gulf for the last 20 years who used to visit home in regular intervals. But neither petitioner nor his family member served with the summons till this day. Petitioner came to know only two days back about the case. Petitioner apprehends that if he surrender before the J.F.C.M., Chavakkad, he will send petitioner behind the bars as non bailable warrant is pending against him and case transferred to the Long Pending Register.” BA 8717/11 2 2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in execution of the non bailable warrant issued by the court and therefore, he has filed this application for anticipatory bail. 3. In Vineeth Somarajan vs. State of Kerala (2009 (3) KLT 576), it was held that when warrant is issued against the accused, his remedy is to approach the court which issued the warrant for recalling the warrant and for granting bail; and not to move under Section 438 Crl.P.C. for anticipatory bail. If the petitioner surrenders before court and moves an application for bail and for recalling the warrant, the same would be considered by the court as indicated in Vineeth Somarajan vs. State of Kerala (2009(3) KLT 576). 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 csl