IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2010 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 1490 of 2010() ---------------------------------------- LP.33/2009 of C.J.M.,KASARAGOD CRIME NO.14/2006 OF NILESHWAR POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- SHAJI, S/O.CHANDRAN, LALITHA NILAYAM, THAIKKADAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NILESHWAR POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. M.S. BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 1490 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 17th 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.2 in Crime No.14/2006 of Nileshwar Police Station. 2. It is stated that the offences alleged against the accused persons are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 283, 225 B, 353 and 427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(2) of the P.D.P.P. Act. 3. It is stated that during crime stage, the petitioner was arrested and he was released on bail. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that charge sheet was filed in the case on 2/4/2006. 4. The petitioner states that he did not receive summons. The case against him was split up. The petitioner was absconding. Non-bailable warrant was issued against him. It is submitted that case against the other accused was tried and accused Nos.1, 3 to 7, 12 and 13 were acquitted as per Annexure A2 judgment dated 16/1/2009 in C.C.No.706/2007 B.A. No. 1490 /2010 2 on the file of the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod. The petitioner apprehends arrest in execution of the non-bailable warrant issued against him. Therefore, he has filed this application for anticipatory bail. In the Bail Application, no reasons are stated for the absence of the petitioner before court. 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 that 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]. Reserving the right of the petitioner to move the court which issued the non bailable warrant, for recalling the warrant and for the grant of bail, this Bail Application is closed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm