IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 8265 of 2011() ----------------------------- LP.23/2011 of ADDL.SESSN.COURT (ADHOC-II)KASARAGODE .................... CRIME NO.601/2001 OF THE HOSDURG POLICE STATION PETITIONER(S): /ACCUSED -------------------------------------- K.VINOD, S/O.BHASKARAN, AGED 27 YEARS, CHETTI HOUSE, CHEMBARIKA, KALANAD AMSOM, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HOSDURG POLICE POLICE STATION KASARAGOD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.K. RAJEEV FOR R1 THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: DS K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------- B.A.No.8265 OF 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of November, 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner apprehends arrest in execution of the non bailable warrant issued by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track, Adhoc-II), Kasaragod in LP No.23 of 2011. It is stated that the case arose out of Crime No.601 of 2001 of Hosdurg Police Station for the offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. It is stated that the petitioner was granted bail during the crime stage. It is not clear from the Bail Application as to whether the petitioner received the summons, whether he appeared before the court after receiving summons or whether he was granted bail. It is stated thus: ”However, the petitioner had to leave the place, in search of an employment, hence he could not, thereafter, appear before the learned Magistrate during committal stage.” B.A.No. 8265 OF 2011 2 2. In Vineeth Somarajan @ Ambady v. State of Kerala (2009(3) KHC 471), it was held that 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 by filing a Bail Application under 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 court has to dispose of the Bail Application in the light of the principles laid down in Biju v. State of Kerala (2007(2) KLT 280). Reserving the right of the petitioner to move the Court which issued the non-bailable warrant, to recall the warrant and to grant bail, this Bail Application is closed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms