IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2010 / 31ST JYAISTHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2987 of 2010() ----------------------------- SC.339/2004 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT-II, KOZHIKODE .................... (CRIME NO.145/2001 OF MUKKOM POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- ABDURAHIMAN, S/O.MUHAMMED, KADACHITHODIKA HOUSE, PANNIKODE P.O., NAYPATTA. BY ADV. SMT.T.V.NEEMA RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (REPRESENTING THE C.I. OF POLICE, KODUVALLY, MUKKOM POLICE STATION). PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J ----------------------- B.A No.2987 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of June 2010 ORDER This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 376, 312, 506(i) r/w 34 IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner (A2) along with first accused committed the above offences and on a complaint filed before Magistrate concerned by de facto complainant, a crime was registered, when it was forwarded for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that first accused in this case was tried by the trial court and as per Annexure A order, he was acquitted. It is also pointed out that according to the prosecutrix, no such incident had happened and all the witnesses turned hostile and that is why first accused was acquitted. In such circumstance, petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that crime was registered as early as in 2001, about nine years back. Petitioner was granted bail and he jumped bail. Petitioner was absconding for a period of nine years and hence the case against him was split up and it is being tried separately. B.A No.2987 OF 2010 2 Warrants were issued against him and hence, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that petitioner is apprehending arrest. But, it was because he failed to appear before the court in breach of bond executed by him. The petitioner's presence is sought to be procured for the purpose of trial by virtue of a non-bailable warrant issued by the court. There is nothing to show that such warrant is issued illegally. In such circumstances, there is absolutely no ground to grant anticipatory bail to a person who was absconding and whose presence is sought to be procured as per the order of a court, in execution of non-bailable warrant which is lawfully. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA JUDGE vdv