IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2010 / 13TH JYAISTHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3248 of 2010() --------------------------------------- CC.249/2009 of J.M.F.C.-I,HOSDRUG .............................................. PETITIONER/ACCUSED --------------------------------- A3 P.V.VASUDEVAN, S/O.KESAVAN NAMBOODIRI, UDAYA BHAVAN, THAYANNUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON SMT.GOVINDU P.RENUKADEVI RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HOSDURG POLICE STATION, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. M.S BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sou. K. HEMA, J ---------------------- B.A.No. 3248 OF 2010 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under section 420 r/w 34 IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner(A3) along with three others availed a loan from Federal Bank by pledging title deed of property and suppressing that property was mortgaged in another bank. Amount was not repaid. Hence, a complaint was filed. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner apprehends arrest since a non-bailable warrant is issued by trial court. He has not received any summons in this case. The co- accused appeared on summons before the curt and case against him ended in acquittal. Under the circumstances, petitioner may be granted bail, it is submitted. 4. Learned public prosecutor submitted that number of the case referred to in this case is CC.249/09. But, there is no corresponding crime in Hosdurg police station. It is also pointed B.A. No.3248/10 2 out that petitioner apprehends arrest on issuance of a non- bailable warrant. 5. On hearing both sides, it appears that petitioners presence is required before the Magistrate court and non-bailable warrant was issued to him for procuring his presence for the purpose of trial. It is not clear on what circumstances, warrant is issued. There is nothing to show that the order is illegally issued. Petitioner had not challenged the order that warrant is issued. Petitioners presence is procured as per lawful order issued by competent court. Hence, I am not inclined to exercise my jurisdiction u/s 438 Cr.P.C to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner may seek appropriate remedy. This petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Sou.