IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 21ST MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 497 of 2010 C.R.NO.12 OF 2000 OF CBCID, SIG -III, KOZHIKODE CRIME NO.438 OF 1999 OF TANUR POLICE STATION PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------- HANEEFA.C.M., S/O.IMBICHI BAVA CHARIYAKATH HOUSE, P.O.TANUR, MALAPPURAM, PIN-676 302. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 497 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 10th 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. The petitioner is accused No.3 in Crime No.438 of 1999 of Tanur Police Station, which was re- registered as C.R.No.12 of 2000 of CBCID, SIG – III, Kozhikode. 2. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner had supplied counterfeit currency notes of the denomination of Rs.500/- to the other accused. 100 currency notes of the denomination of Rs.500/- were seized by the police. The petitioner could not be arrested during all these years. He surfaced in 2009 and instead of surrendering before Court he has filed this application for anticipatory bail. As held in Vineeth Somarajan @ Ambady v. State of Kerala B.A. NO. 497 OF 2010 :: 2 :: (2009 (3) KHC 471), the application for anticipatory bail is not the remedy. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the Bail Application. It is submitted that the petitioner was absconding and the offence alleged is of a very serious nature. It is also submitted that accused Nos.1, 5 and 6 were convicted by the trial court. 5. In Vineeth Somarajan @ Ambady v. State of Kerala (2009 (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). B.A. NO. 497 OF 2010 :: 3 :: Reserving the right of the petitioner to move the Court which issued the non-bailable warrant, to recall the warrant and to grant bail, this Bail Application is closed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/