IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2010 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2138 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.202/1998 OF KUNNICODU POLICE STATION. PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2: ------------------------------------------- ABHILASH, S/O.ANANDHAN, AJESH BHAVAN, THEKKUMUKAL, KUNNICODU, VILAKKUDY VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE RESPONDENTS/ STATE/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KUNNICODU POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT. SRI. TEKCHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/04/2010 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No.2138 of 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of April, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is stated that the petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.202/1998 of Kunnicodu Police Station, registered for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 326, 427 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It is submitted that during the committal stage, the petitioner was released on bail. However, he did not appear before the court thereafter. It is stated that the petitioner had gone abroad. The case was pending as S.C.No.1935 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kottarakara. The case against the petitioner was treated as long pending case and it was numbered as L.P.No.2/2009. It is stated that non-bailable warrant was issued for the arrest of the petitioner. The petitioner apprehends arrest in execution of the non-bailable warrant. Hence, he has filed this application for anticipatory bail. B.A. No. 2138 /2010 2 3. 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 petitioner to move the court which issued the non bailable warrant, for recalling the warrant and for the grant of bail, this Bail Application is closed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm