IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2010 / 28TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 7451 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.18/2008 OF CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER (S): ACCUSED: ---------------------------- SOBI GEORGE, COCHIN KALAGRAHAM, KALABHAVAN ROAD, ERNAKULAM NORTH. BY ADV. SRI.S.SUDHEESHKAR SRI. K.SIJU RESPONDENT(S): STATE: --------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.7451 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of January, 2010 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.81 of 2008 on the file of the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam (Crime No.18 of 2008 of Central Police Station, Ernakulam). 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the order passed on 7.2.2008 in Bail Application No.807 of 2008, anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner on certain conditions. One of the condition was that the petitioner had to deposit Rs.3.10 lakhs before the learned Magistrate on 29.2.2008. It is submitted that the amount was deposited. It is stated that charge sheet was filed on 25.2.2008 and the case was numbered as C.C.No.81 of 2008 on the file of the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that regular bail was granted by the BA No.7451/2009 2 court after the petitioner appeared on summons. Thereafter, he could not appear and therefore, non bailable warrant was issued by the court. The petitioner apprehends arrest in execution of the non bailable warrant. 4. In Vineeth Somarajan @ Ambady vs. State of Kerala (2009(3) KHC 471), it was held that in cases 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 invoking 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 vs. State of Kerala (2007(2) KLT 280). 5. Reserving the right of the petitioner to move the court which issued the non bailable warrant, this Bail Application is disposed of. However, if it is shown that the petitioner had deposited Rs.3.1 lakhs as directed by this Court, the court shall BA No.7451/2009 3 grant bail to the petitioner on such conditions as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case on the date on which the petitioner surrenders before court. The petitioner shall surrender before court within two weeks. The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl