IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2008 / 16TH SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4789 of 2008() ----------------------------- L.P.NO.4/2007 IN SC.229/2003 of ADL.SUB COURT, THALASSERY CRIME NO. 53/1999 OF KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION PETITIONER/A9 ------------------------------ MADHUSOODHANAN, S/O.PADMANABHAN, MANIKOTHU HOUSE, KADAMPOORU P.O., VIA EDAKKAD, KANNUR (DIST). NOW RESIDING AT KODOTHU PARAMBIL VEEDU, KESAVADEV ROAD, MUDAVANMUGHAL, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED RESPONDENT: ------------- THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 4789 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of August, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. 2. After hearing both sides, it is brought to my notice that petitioner's arrest is required for execution of a non bailable warrant issued by the court below. Petitioner is an accused in a case involving offence under section 307 IPC. The petitioner was absent in the court below during trial for a long time, and hence the case was entered in the register of long pending cases and warrant was issued against him. Petitioner apprehends arrest and hence, this application is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the only allegation made against the petitioner is under section 212 IPC. All other accused were acquitted and the petitioner's case was split up. 4. Petitioner apprehends arrest. But the apprehension of arrest is only on account of the fact that non bailable warrant was issued against him from a court having jurisdiction because of his long period of absence and since his presence could not be procured and he is an absconder. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to invoke power under section 438 Cr.P.C. either on facts or in law. The BA 4789/2008 -2- petitioner has not satisfied the requirements to apply the provision under section 438(1) Cr.P.C. The application is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. mn.