IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2010 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1522 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.459/2003 OF KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION SC 965/2005 OF ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK III, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ PRASANNAN, S/O. VASU PANIKKAR, PAPPADIYIL, KADATHOOR MURI, THAZHAVA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. K.SIJU RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S.I. OF POLICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.1522 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th 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.1 in Crime No.459 of 2003 of Karunagappally Police Station, which is now pending as Sessions Case No.965 of 2005 on the file of the court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track-III), Kollam. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 55(a) & (g) of the Abkari Act. 3. It is stated that during the crime stage, the petitioner was arrested and he was granted bail. Later, the petitioner went abroad in search of employment. Therefore, he could not appear before the Sessions Court. Non bailable warrant was issued by the Sessions Court. The petitioner apprehends arrest in execution of the non bailable warrant. 4. In Vineeth Somarajan @ Ambady vs. State of Kerala (2009(3) KHC 471), it was held that in cases where non bailable warrant is issued by the court, normally, the person BA No.1522/2010 2 against whom the warrant is issued has to approach the court which issued the warrant for re-calling the warrant and for the grant of bail. He cannot, normally, straight away approach the High Court invoking Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was also noticed in that decision that when such an application for bail is filed, the learned Magistrate has to dispose of the Bail Application in the light of the principles laid down in Biju vs. State of Kerala (2007(2) KLT 280). Reserving the right of the petitioner to move the court which issued the non-bailable warrant, to recall the warrant and to grant bail, this Bail Application is closed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl