IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2010 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 1297 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.763/2005 OF ADOOR POLICE STATION LP NO.24/2008 OF JFCM COURT, ADOOR .................... PETITIONER : 3RD ACCUSED ----------------------------------------- SHAJI, S/O.HANIFA, PUNNAVELIKADAYIL, ENATHU MURI, ENATHU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ SRI.SAJJU.S RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.1297 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of March, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.3 in Crime No.763 of 2005 of Adoor Police Station. 2. The crime was registered for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 341 and 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that subsequently Section 379 IPC was deleted. 3. The petitioner states that he was not arrested during the crime stage. After filing the charge sheet, it is stated that the petitioner received summons, but he could not appear as he was employed outside Kerala. The case against the petitioner was split up and it was treated as long pending case. It was numbered as L.P.No.24 of 2008 on the file of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Adoor. Non bailable warrant was issued against the petitioner. The petitioner apprehends arrest in execution of the non bailable warrant and BA No.1297/2010 2 therefore, he has approached this Court under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 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, 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 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 csl