IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2010 / 1ST MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 196 of 2010 CRIME NO.349 OF 2006 OF KAZHAKKOOTTOM POLICE STATION PETITIONER/5TH ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------- ANOOJ, SON OF BAHULEYAN, AGED 27, RESIDING AT TC.13/0409, KALLINGAL WARD, ATTIPRA VILLAGE, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.J.S.AJITHKUMAR RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 196 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 21st day of January, 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.5 in Crime No.349 of 2006 of Kazhakkoottom Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 452 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that even before filing the Bail Application, charge sheet was filed in the case and the case is now pending as C.P.No.79 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class II, Attingal. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that non- bailable warrant issued by the court against the petitioner is pending. The petitioner apprehends arrest in execution of the non-bailable warrant. B.A. NO. 196 OF 2010 :: 2 :: 4. 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). 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 ahz/