IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2010 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 1154 of 2010() --------------------------------- SC.878/2008 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM CRIME NO. 825/2004 OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/7TH ACCUSED : --------------------------------- BHAVAI @ PAVIRAJ, S/O.PAVITHRAN, PANDIYAZHIKAM VEEDU, MULLAVILA, VADAKKEVILA PO, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ALAN PAPALI RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT : ------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRSENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. M.S.BREEZ PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 1154 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 09th day of March, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.7 in Crime No.825/2004 of Kollam East Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 506(ii) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. It is stated that during the crime stage, the petitioner was not arrested. During the committal stage, the petitioner appeared before the Court and he was granted bail. It is stated that after the case was committed to the Sessions Court, the petitioner did not receive summons. The petitioner went to Dubai on 06.05.2008. Later, he came to know that the case was pending before the learned Sessions Judge and that a non bailable warrant was issued. The petitioner came back to India on 23.11.2009. Later, on 09.01.2010, the petitioner met with an accident and he sustained serious injuries. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in fact the disputes between B.A. No. 1154/ 2010 2 the de facto complainant and the accused were settled. 4. The learned Sessions Judge has issued a non bailable warrant for the arrest of the petitioner. It is stated that if the petitioner is arrested and detained, he would be put to irreparable injury and great hardship. 5. In Vineeth Somarajan @ Ambadi Vs. State of Kerala [2009 (3) KHC 471] it was held that in cases where non bailable warrant is issued by a court, the proper remedy of the accused is to approach that court which issued the warrant and to apply for recalling the warrant and for the grant of bail. It was also observed in Vineeth Somarajan's case that when such an application for bail is filed, the same has to be considered in the light of the principles laid down in Biju Vs. State of Kerala [2007 (2) K.L.T. 280]. The petitioner would be free to point out all the relevant details before the learned Sessions Judge. Reserving the right of the petitioner to move the learned Sessions Judge for recalling the warrant and for granting bail, this Bail Application is closed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln