IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2009 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3107 of 2009() ----------------------------- CC.708/2008 of J.M.F.C.,PARAPPANANGADI .................... PETITIONER : ACCUSED ------------------------------ VINOD KUMAR, KOONERI HOUSE ARIYALLOOR, ARIYALLOOR AMSOM AND DESOM. BY ADV. SRI.E.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARAPPANANGADI. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.3107 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of June, 2009 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner was arrayed as the second accused in C.C. No.404 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-Parappanagadi. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 341 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The petitioner appeared before the trial court and he was released on bail. Later, he did not appear before the court. It would appear that the petitioner absconded. The case was treated as long pending case. The case against the petitioner was split up and it was renumbered as C.C.No.708 of 2008. It would appear that the trial court has issued a non bail warrant against the petitioner and at this juncture, this Bail Application is filed. 4. Under what circumstances the trial court issued non bailable warrant against the petitioner, whether there was willful absence before the court below, what are the steps taken by the court below etc. are all readily available before the trial court. The petitioner BA No.3107/2009 2 can very well appear before the court and apply for re-calling the warrant. He has also an alternative remedy of filing a Crl.M.C. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to get anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Crl.P.C. The Bail Application is dismissed leaving open the right of the petitioner to seek other remedies. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl