IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2010 / 28TH SRAVANA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 4564 of 2010() ----------------------------- CC 654/01 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, DELHI. (S): PETITIONER ------------------------------ SIJO THALIYAN, R/O 2/73 THALIYAN HOUSE, 73/VATHAKKAD, THURAVOOR, ANGAMALY, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANGAMALY POLICE STATION, ANGAMALY. 3. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DELHI, NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI. 4. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOCHI. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.4564 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 19th August, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. Petitioner is an accused in C.C.654/01 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. The alleged offence is under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. A non-bailable warrant is issued against petitioner, since he failed to appear on receipt of summons. 3. There is no representation for petitioner. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor. The offence involved in this case is under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which is a bailable offence. This is the second application for anticipatory bail. The earlier application, B.A.405/10 was dismissed by another bench of this Court, as per order dated 18.2.2010. In the said order, the following observations were made : “The limited prayer made by the petitioner is that he may be afforded an opportunity to appear before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi and to apply for bail or to resort to other legal remedies. It is submitted that a breathing time may be granted to the petitioner to appear before the Court. It is submitted that till then a direction not to arrest the BA NO. 4564/10 2 petitioner may be issued. The request is just and reasonable. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be a direction to the second respondent not to arrest the petitioner in execution of the non bailable warrant issued by the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi in Complaint Case No.654/01 of 2009 filed by Esys Information Technologies Pvt.Limited, through its authorized representative, Sri.Abhishek Singh, for a period of three weeks to enable the petitioner to appear before the court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi or to resort to other legal remedies.” 4. In spite of the above order passed in favour of petitioner, it appears that petitioner did not surrender before appropriate court, in spite of lapse of six months of passing of the order. Instead, he filed a petition again for anticipatory bail. I do not find any reason for granting anticipatory bail to petitioner. Petitioner is not entitled to get an order under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The said provision cannot be invoked in a case involving a bailable offence. Petitioner is bound to surrender before the trial court without any delay. The trial is already protracted. There is no justification in extending any relief to the petitioner. No further application for anticipatory bail by BA NO. 4564/10 3 petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this court hereafter. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs