IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2080 of 2010() --------------------------------- C.R.NO. 42/2008 OF EXCISE RANGE, THIRUVALLA .......................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED : ----------------------------- PRASANNA KUMAR, AGED 42, S/O.MADHAVAN PILLAI, CHEMANIKARA HOUSE, NIRANAM PADINJATTUMURY, NIRANAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. I.V.PRAMOD PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No.2080 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 31st day of March, 2010 O R D E R The petitioner states that he is the sole accused in C.P. No. 155/2008 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Thiruvalla. C.R.No.42/2008 of Excise Range, Thiruvalla was registered against the petitioner for the offence under Section 8(1)(2) of the Abkari Act. During the investigation stage, it is stated that the petitioner was not arrested. After filing the charge sheet, according to the petitioner, he did not receive any summons. Now the case is pending as C.P. No. 155/2008. It is stated that non bailable warrant was issued by the Court. The petitioner apprehends arrest in execution of the non bailable warrant. Therefore, he has filed this application for anticipatory bail. 2. 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 B.A. No.2080 of 2010 2 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]. 3. In Sukumari Vs. State of Kerala [2001 (1) KLT.22], it was held that the power under Section 437 can be invoked by the Magistrate even in cases involving an offence exclusively triable by a Court of Session. 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 ln