IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2009 / 24TH ASWINA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5928 of 2009() ----------------------------- CC.266/2004 of J.M.F.C.,VAIKOM .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- SATHEESH CHANDRAN, S/O. RAMACHANDRAN, MALIAKKAL HOUSE, 7/28, KOCHUKAVALA, NADUVELI VILLAGE, VAIKOM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAVEENDRAN SRI.ANIL KUMAR M.SIVARAMAN RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE FOOD INSPECTOR, ETTUMANOOR CIRCLE, ETTUMANOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VAIKOM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.5928 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of October, 2009 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.266 of 2004 on the file of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Vaikom, which is now pending as L.P.No.31 of 2008. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 3. It is alleged that some items of chocolates and confectioneries manufactured by Cadburys India Ltd. were found to be adulterated. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the packets were found intact even by the Food Inspector. It is stated that the petitioner is a licensee and that he has got necessary bills for the purchase. 5. While the case was pending before the trial court, the petitioner obtained an employment in the Middle East and he went abroad. The counsel was entrusted to conduct the trial and BA No.5928/2009 2 do all that was necessary in the absence of the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that some of the witnesses were examined while the petitioner was present in the court and the other witnesses were examined after he went abroad. The petitioner submits that he could not come to India at the time when he was to be questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Now he has come to India. The case against him was treated as long pending case in the meanwhile and non bailable warrant was issued against him. The petitioner apprehends arrest in execution of the non bailable warrant. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the petitioner surrenders before the trial court, there is every likelihood of the petitioner being remanded to judicial custody. 6. 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 the court, normally, the accused has to appear before the court which issued the non bailable warrant and apply for withdrawing the warrant and for the grant of bail. It was also held that when such an application for bail is BA No.5928/2009 3 filed, the court shall dispose of the same in the light of the principles laid down in Biju vs. State of Kerala (2007(2) KLT 280). Leaving open the right of the petitioner to move for withdrawing the warrant and for the grant of bail, the Bail Application is closed. It is made clear that if the petitioner surrenders before the trial court and makes proper applications, the court shall consider the same in the light of the decisions referred to above. The Bail Application is disposed of as above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl