IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 18TH MAY 2010 / 28TH VAISAKHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1834 of 2010() ----------------------------------------- S.C.NO.321/2002 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR, CRIME NO.96/1998 OF VADAKKEKAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT. .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ------------------------------------------- SHERHABEEL. K.M., S/O.MOIDUNNI, AGED 34 YEARS, BUSSINESS, KARATHAKKA, AKALAD P.O., PUNNAYUR VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM REP.BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADAKKEKAD POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.M.S. BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. K.HEMA, J. ------------------ B.A. No. 1834 of 2010 ----------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of May, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. Petitioner is second accused in the case. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 148, 341, 324, 328 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner appeared before the court on receipt of summons and the case was committed to the Sessions Court. The petitioner appeared before the Assistant Sessions judge also on receipt of summons. But he got an employment in Mumbai and he was enable to appear the court below on one of the posting date and hence, non bailable warrant was issued against him. Petitioner apprehends arrest and hence he seeks anticipatory bail. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the only earning member of the family and he was compelled to go to Mumbai for getting a job. His absence is not wilful and hence he may be granted anticipatory bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application and B.A. No. 1834 of 2010 2 pointed out that the incident in the case as early as on 27.06.1998 and that trial is pending since petitioner absconded. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that the petitioner is anticipating arrest, in the light of non bailable warrant lawfully issued by the trial court. Warrant happened to be issued since he fails to appear in court. The order by which warrant is issued is not challenged in any proceedings and there is nothing to show it is illegal. In such circumstances, petitioner is bound to appear before the trial court and co-operate with the trial. If anticipatory bail is granted, it will amount to interference with the lawful proceedings of the trial court which is unjustified. Hence petitioner shall appear before the trial court within 7 days from today and co-operate with the trial. In case the petitioner moves for bail before the trial court, the court shall dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably on the same day. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE B.A. No. 1834 of 2010 3 ln