IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2011 / 11TH SRAVANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 5930 of 2011 CRIME NO.260 OF 2010 OF PAYANGADI POLICE STATION C.C.NO.684 OF 2010 ON THE FILE OF JFCM, PAYYANUR, KANNUR PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ------------------------------------------- SUDHEEP KUMAR.K., AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.PREMAVALLI, KAKKADAN HOUSE, VENGARA P.O., VENGARA. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Bail Appl. NO. 5930 OF 2011 E ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of August, 2011 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.1 in Crime No.260 of 2010 of Payangadi Police Station, Kannur District. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner was employed in a Gulf country. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed and the case was numbered as C.C.No.684 of 2010, on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Payyanur. It is stated that non-bailable warrant was issued against the petitioner. The petitioner apprehends arrest in execution of the non-bailable warrant issued against him, on his arrival to India shortly. 4. In Vineeth Somarajan @ Ambady v. State of Kerala (2009 BAIL APPL. NO.5930 OF 2011 :: 2 :: (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). In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Bail Application is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court which issued the warrant to recall the warrant and to grant bail. When an application for bail is filed by the petitioner, the learned Magistrate shall consider the same in the light of the principles laid down in Vineeth Somarajan's case. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/