IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2008 / 18TH ASHADHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4381 of 2008() ----------------------------- SC.710/2003 ON THE FILE OF FAST TRACK COURT-I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED:- ----------------------------------------- BINUKUMAR, S/O MANIYAN, TC 5/1132,LESHMI VILAS, AMBALAMUKKU, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM. BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY RESPONDENT:COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. -------------------------------------- Bail Application No.4381 of 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of July, 2008 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. Petitioner is the third accused in the case before the Fast Track Court-I. Petitioner was on bail and he was regularly appearing in court. But, on 31.10.2007, he could not appear in court or instruct the lawyer, since he was laid up due to an accident. The court issued NBW against the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner apprehends that if he appears before the court, he would be remanded to judicial custody. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the non appearance of the petitioner was not willful but for the reasons beyond his control and hence, he seeks anticipatory bail. 3. On hearing both sides, it is clear that that the petitioner is apprehending arrest consequent to a non bailable warrant issued by a competent court. The petitioner is apprehending arrest not on accusation of any non bailable offence but his arrest is required for execution of lawful warrant BA No.4381/08 2 issued by a court. Hence, going by the language of the provision in Section 438 Crl.P.C., anticipatory bail cannot be granted in cases of this nature. However, it is seen from the records produced that the petitioner was hospitalised on 30.10.2007 and he was under medication. He had also sustained injury. The receipt issued for taking x-ray on 31.10.2007 is also produced. 3. Therefore, the petitioner's absence cannot be said to be willful and if these facts are brought to the notice of the lower court, there is no reason why bail shall not be granted to the petitioner. But, anticipatory bail is not the remedy. The petitioner may therefore move the trial court itself for appropriate relief. The apprehension expressed by the petitioner that he will be remanded without any reason appears to be baseless. With these observations, this petition is disposed of accordingly. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl