IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2010 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 6788 of 2010() ----------------------------- SC.462/2001 of D.C & SESSIONS COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- NAVAB.M,S/O.MOHAMMED IBRAHIM, T.C.NO.44/434,NADUVILAKOM PURAYIDOM, BHEEMA PALLY,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SRI.JAGAN GEORGE SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD SRI.P.G.PRAMOD SRI.KANDAMPULLY RAHUL RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,POONTHURA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.(THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM). PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. ------------------------------- Bail Application No.6788 of 2010 ------------------------------- DATED: 28.10.2010 O R D E R Petitioner, who is the 2nd accused in S.C.No.462/2001 on the file of Principal Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, seeks anticipatory bail. 2. Consequent on the non-appearance of the petitioner in S.C.No.462/2001 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, the case against the petitioner has been transferred to the Long Pending Case Register as L.P. Case No.29/2004. Admittedly, non-bailable warrants of arrest are pending against the petitioner. Anticipatory bail cannot be granted to nullify the process issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. There is no reason why the petitioner should not surrender before the court below and seek regular bail. Accordingly, if the petitioner surrenders before the court below and files an application for regular bail within two weeks from today, the same shall be considered and disposed of preferably on the same day on which it is filed notwithstanding the pendency of non-bailable warrants of arrest against the petitioner and also after considering the explanation offered by the petitioner for his previous non- appearance. With the above observation this application is disposed of . V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. sj