IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2009 / 5TH ASHADHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3575 of 2009() -------------------------------------- CRIME NO.354/2007 OF ALUVA POLICE STATION PETITIONER/4TH ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ IKBAL AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. KHALID, K.S.NANZIL, KARIPPAYIL HOUSE, PUKKATTUPADI, ALUVA EAST VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK,ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. SRI. T.K. VIPINDAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/06/2009ALONG WITH B.A. NOS. 3576/2009 & 3577/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. Nos.3575, 3576 & 3577 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of June, 2009 O R D E R These applications are filed by Ikbal son of Khalid, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of anticipatory bail in Crime Nos.354/2007, 37/2006 and 13/2008 of Aluva Police Station respectively. These Bail Applications would disclose that the petitioner was an accused in S.C. No.318/2001 of the Sessions Court, Adhoc-III, North Paravoor, S.C. No.394/2008, 3rd Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam and in C.P No.13/2008 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class- I, Aluva. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. He submitted that cases were initiated on account of some money transactions. 2. It would appear that warrants were issued by the court against the petitioner. When the apprehension of arrest of the petitioner is on account of execution of warrant issued by the Criminal Court, normally an application for anticipatory bail B.A. Nos.3575, 3576 & 3577/2009 2 would not be entertained. The petitioner submits that he came to India on 16/06/2009 and his wedding is fixed to be solemnized on 28/06/2009. It is submitted that if the petitioner is arrested at this point of time, it would result in untold misery and great hardship. 3. Under what circumstances, the criminal courts issued warrants against the petitioner would be known only to those courts. In an application for anticipatory bail, those questions cannot be considered. Sometimes, it may involve disputed questions of fact. The question whether summons was duly served, whether bail was granted earlier, whether the person concerned violated the conditions of bail, are all matters to be considered by the court, which issued the warrant, when an application is filed for recalling the warrant. In an application under Section 438, without looking into records, the High Court would not be in a position to say whether there was justification for non-appearance of the accused concerned. Therefore, I am of the view that remedy of the petitioner is to approach the court concerned for appropriate relief. B.A. Nos.3575, 3576 & 3577/2009 3 4. However only on account of the fact that the petitioner's wedding is stated to be scheduled to be held on 28/06/2009, these Bail Applications are being entertained and only very limited reliefs are being granted in favour of the petitioner. There will be a direction that the petitioner shall not be arrested in execution of the warrant in the aforementioned cases till 30/06/2009, on condition that the petitioner shall surrender his passport before the Sub Inspector of Police, Aluva before 28/06/2009. It is made clear that the order in these Bail Applications will cease to have any effect after 30/06/2009. These Bail Applications are disposed of accordingly. This order also will not preclude the police from making surveillance over the petitioner till 30/06/2009 or thereafter. H/o. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm