IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2010 / 14TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 7601 of 2009() ---------------------------------------- CRIME NO.180/2009 OF THE VALLIKKUNNAM POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA ......... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ----------------------- MANU.C.S, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.S.CHANDRASEKARAN NAIR, SANTHI VILAS, PUTHETHU VEEDU, VIDHYA NAGAR-42, KOTTAMUKKU, KOLLAM-691013. BY ADVS.MR.V.V.RAJA MR.M.T.SURESHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE S.I OF POLICE, VALLIKKUNAM POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 7601 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of January, 2010 O R D E R Apprehending arrest on an accusation of having committed offences under Sections 498A, 308, 323 and 120 B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has filed this application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.180/2009 of Vallikkunnam Police Station. 2. It is submitted that as per the order dated 24/6/2009 in B.A. No.3375/2009, anticipatory bail was granted in favour of accused Nos. 2 and 3. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that after completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed in the case on 10/7/2009. Since the charge sheet is filed, there cannot be any apprehension by the petitioner that the investigating officer would arrest him during the course of investigation. Therefore, there is no reason why the application should be allowed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the charge sheet was filed on 10/7/2009, it is most likely that the learned B.A. No. 7601 /2009 2 Magistrate would have issued a non-bailable warrant for the arrest of the petitioner. Even in such a case, as held in Vineeth Somarajan @ Ambadi Vs. State of Kerala [2009(3)KHC 471], the remedy of the petitioner would be to approach the court which issued the non-bailable 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 disposed of in the light of the principles laid down in Biju Vs. State of Kerala [2007(2) K.L.T 280]. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the offences under Sections 308, 323 and 120 B were deleted and the offence alleged against the accused persons is under Section 498 A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Reserving the right of the petitioner to move for regular bail, this application for anticipatory bail is closed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm