IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2011 / 21ST ASHADHA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 5483 of 2011 CC.NO.783/2009 ON THE FILE OF JFCM, KAYAMKULAM PETITIONER: 1ST ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------- PRAVEENKUMAR, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN, PREETHA MANDIRAM, PUTHUPPALLI SOUTH, KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Bail Appl. NO. 5483 OF 2011 C ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of July, 2011 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 C.C.No.783 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kayamkulam. 2. The offence alleged against the accused is under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. At the crime stage, the petitioner and the other accused were granted anticipatory bail as per the order dated 26.8.2009 in B.A.No.4672 of 2009. It is stated that the first petitioner went abroad. It also stated that due to his non-appearance, warrant was issued against him. The petitioner apprehends arrest in execution of the non-bailable warrant issued against him. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the BAIL APPL. NO.5483 OF 2011 :: 2 :: matter is referred to the Adalath for settlement and it is pending before the Adalath. Since the warrant is issued against the petitioner, he is not in a position to participate in the Adalath as well. 5. In Vineeth Somarajan @ Ambady v. State of Kerala (2009 (3) KHC 471), it was held that where non-bailable warrant is issued by the court on account of non-appearance of the accused, normally, the person 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 by filing a Bail Application under 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 v. State of Kerala (2007(2) KLT 280). In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Bail Application is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court which issued the warrant to recall the warrant and to grant bail. When an application for bail is filed by the petitioner, the learned Magistrate shall BAIL APPL. NO.5483 OF 2011 :: 3 :: consider the same in the light of the principles laid down in Vineeth Somarajan's case. The learned Magistrate shall also take note of the fact that the matter is referred to the Adalath. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/