IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2009 / 1ST POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 7635 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.523/09 OF CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- VINOD KUMAR,S/O.SIVARAJAN PILLAI, 30 YEARS, CHIRAKKUTHEKKEPUTHEN VEEDU, NEAR KSRTC DEPO, AYUR, EDAMULAKKAL VILLAGE BY ADV. SRI.SYAM J SAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.7635 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2009 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.523 of 2009 of Chadayamangalam Police Station, Kollam District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 326 and 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed before court on 22.9.2009. He apprehends arrest in execution of a non bailable warrant issued by the court. The circumstances in which the warrant was issued by the court are not stated in the Bail application. The petitioner has not disclosed as to why warrant was issued. It is also not stated that he did not receive summons. 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 BA No.7635/2009 2 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). Reserving the liberty of the petitioner to move the court which issued the warrant to recall the warrant and to grant bail, this Bail Application is closed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl