IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2009 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 2984 of 2009() --------------------------------------- LP.6/2000 of J.M.F.C.-II,NEYYATTINKARA CC NO.1066/1997 .................... PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------- KANAKARAJ, S/O.DEVASSY, NARIKKUZHI PALLATHUMEPPURAM VEEDU, ERICHALLOOR, KARODE. BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POZHIYOOR POLICE STATION, POZHIYOOR. SRI. M.S. BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No.2984 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of June, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the 3rd accused in CC No.1066/1997 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Neyyattinkara. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner did not appear before court and therefore the case against him was split up and registered as LP No.6/2000. It is stated that the other accused were acquitted by the trial court. Non bailable warrant was issued against the petitioner. At this juncture, the petitioner has approached this Court for the grant of anticipatory bail. 3. If a warrant is issued by the trial court in LP case, the petitioner is free to approach that court for withdrawal of the warrant and for granting bail. I do not think that an application under Section 438 is an appropriate remedy. Alternatively, the petitioner could move a Criminal M.C under B.A. No.2984 /2009 2 Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for appropriate reliefs. It may not be appropriate to exercise jurisdiction under Section 438 by this Court, as the correct facts leading to the splitting up of the case, issuance of non bailable warrant and other relevant facts and circumstances would not be readily available. Therefore, I am not inclined to exercise jurisdiction vested under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to resort to other available remedies. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm