IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2011 / 20TH ASHADHA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 5413 of 2011() ----------------------------- LP.144/2003 of J.M.F.C.-IIII,TRIVANDRUM CRIME NO.199/1998 OF KAZHAKKOOTTAM POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ SUNIL DUTT, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.SIVADASAN, RESIDING AT AYODYA, AVANAVANCHERY, ATTINGAL. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, (CRIME NO.199/98 OF KAZHAKKOOTTAM POLICE STATION), REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A.No.5413 of 2011 --------------------------- Dated this the 11th 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 first accused in Crime No.199 of 1998 of Kazhakoottam Police Station which is now pending as L.P.No.144 of 2003 on the file of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-III, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner was found transporting 139 litres of Indian made foreign liquor in a Tata Sumo Car. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed. However, the petitioner did not appear before court in spite of service of summons. The court below issued warrant for his arrest. At this juncture, the petitioner approached this Court with a prayer to grant anticipatory bail. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that BA 5413/2011 2 no summons was received by the petitioner and that was the reason why he did not appear before court. It is also submitted that if the petitioner is arrested in execution of the warrant, he would be put to great hardship. 4. In Vineeth Somarajan vs. State of Kerala (2009(3) KLT 576), it was held that when a warrant is issued by a court, normally, no application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would lie and the remedy of the party against whom warrant issued is to approach the court, which issued the warrant, to recall the warrant and to grant bail. In the light of the decision in Vineeth Somarajan's 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. If such an application is filed, the same shall be considered in the light of the principles laid down in Vineeth Somarajan's case. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl