IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 9417 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.115/2006 OF ADOOR EXCISE RANGE .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------- MANIAMMA, AGED 37 YEARS, W/O.MOHANAN, ATHIRALAYAM, THENGAMAM MURI, PALLICKAL VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.DILEEP RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 31. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.K.RAJEEV THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A.No.9417 of 2011 --------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of November, 2011 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the accused in Crime No.115 of 2006 of Adoor Excise Range. 2. In paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Bail Application, it is stated thus : “5. It is submitted that the investigation of the case is completed and final report has been filed before the court below. Now the petitioner came to know that case against her is pending in C.P.108/2008. Hence, the custody of the accused in this case is unnecessary, and against law and natural justice. 6. It is respectfully submitted that now the police is enquiring about the petitioner in connection with this case. They are regularly coming to the petitioner's house and enquiring about the petitioner and harassing her family members. If the petitioner is arrested, he would BA 9417/11 2 suffer irreparable injury and severe prejudice.” 3. The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the petitioner filed Bail Application No.629 of 2007 for anticipatory bail. But that application was dismissed by the order dated 5.1.2007. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present Bail Application is filed when non bailable warrant was issued after filing the final report. It is true that the case number is shown as C.P.108 of 2008. No other details are furnished in the Bail Application. It is not even stated that a non bailable warrant was issued by the court. It may be true as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a non bailable warrant was issued by the court to arrest the petitioner. This Bail Application is being disposed of taking the statement of the counsel as correct though no materials are furnished in the Bail Application. 5. In Vineeth Somarajan vs. State of Kerala (2009 (3) KLT 576), it was held that when warrant is issued against the accused, BA 9417/11 3 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. 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