IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 14TH MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 723 of 2010() -------------------------------------- CRIME NO.263/2004 IN MANNAR POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 & 2: -------------------------------------------------- 1. ANEESH, S/O. WILLIAMS, KAKKANATTEZHATHU HOUSE, ENNAKKADU MURI,ENNAKKADU VILLAGE,ALAPPUZHA 2. WILLIAMS @ PRABHAKARA PANICKER, DO. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.PRADEEP RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. SRI. TEKCHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 3/02/2010 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 723 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is submitted that the petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in L.P. No. 388/2008 on the file of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Chengannnur. It is submitted that the case was originally pending before the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Chengannur in C.P. No.54/2005. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are stated to be under Sections 308, 326 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were not arrested during the crime stage. The petitioners did not get summons in the case. They were working abroad. Therefore, they could not appear before the court. A non-bailable warrant was issued by the learned Magistrate to arrest the petitioners. The petitioners apprehend arrest in execution of the non-bailable warrant. B.A. No. 723/2010 2 4. 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 a court, the proper remedy of the accused is to approach that court which issued the warrant and to apply for recalling that 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 considered in the light of the principles laid down in Biju Vs. State of Kerala [2007 (2) K.L.T 280]. Reserving the right of the petitioners to move the learned Magistrate for recalling the warrant and for the grant of bail, this Bail Application is closed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm