IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6891 of 2009() ------------------------------------ CRIME NO. 392/2004 OF CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION ................... PETITIONER/6TH ACCUSED : ------------------------------------------ MUHAMMED HASHIM, S/O. BADARUDHEEN SAHIB, MANJU COTTEGE, VAIKKAL P.O., PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A RESPONDENT/STATE: ------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. V. TEKCHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 6891 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of November, 2009 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.6 in Crime No.392/2004 of Chadayamangalam Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324 and 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It is submitted that at the crime stage the petitioner was arrested and he was in judicial custody for a few days. Later, he was released on bail. 4. In the committal proceedings, it is stated that the petitioner did not receive any summons. He had gone abroad in search of a job. The petitioner came to India recently. Meanwhile, non bailable warrant was issued against the petitioner. The petitioner apprehends arrest in execution of the non bailable warrant. Hence this Bail Application is filed for Anticipatory Bail. B.A. No. 6891 of 2009 2 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 the 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 apply before the learned Magistrate to recall the warrant and to grant bail, this Bail Application is closed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln