IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 8457 of 2011() ----------------------------- LP.19/2010 IN CC.669/2009 of JUDL.MAG.OF FIRST CLASS-I,MANJERI IN CRIME NO.80/2006 OF KALIKAVU POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED ABDUL KAREEM, S/O.KUNJAYAMMU, THUMBA HOUSE, AMARAMBALAM P.O., NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN RESPONDENT(S): STATE: --------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALIKAVU THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.K.RAJEEV THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A.No.8457 of 2011 --------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of November, 2011 O R D E R The petitioner apprehends arrest in execution of a non bailable warrant issued in L.P.No.19 of 2010 in C.C.No.669 of 2009 on the file of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Manjeri. The case arose out of Crime No.80 of 2006 of Kalikavu Police Station registered for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It is stated that the case against the petitioner was split up and refiled as C.C.No.669 of 2009 and it was transferred to L.P. Register and numbered as L.P.No.19 of 2010. 3. In paragraph 4 of the Bail Application, it is stated thus : “4. Petitioner was not aware that he is made an accused in serious offences by the police. Petitioner lost his passport in Jeddah BA 8457/11 2 and he was sent back by the Embassy of India through an emergency pass. He came back to India on 20.8.2011. A true copy of the emergency pass issued to the petitioner is produced herewith and marked as Annexure A3. On reaching home the police came after him and then only the petitioner came to know that he is made an accused in theft cases by the police on mistaken identity and warrants of arrest are pending against the petitioner in cases of similar nature. The petitioner and co-accused were implicated in number cases of similar nature. All the accused in those cases are acquitted.” 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender and that no indulgence is called for in the present case. 5. In Vineeth Somarajan vs. State of Kerala (2009 (3) KLT 576), it was held that when warrant is issued against the accused, his remedy is to approach the court which issued the warrant for recalling the warrant and for granting bail; and not to move under Section 438 Crl.P.C. for anticipatory bail. BA 8457/11 3 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