IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 5TH ASWINA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 7700 of 2011() ------------------------------------- CC.195/2010 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KOTHAMANGALAM CRIME NO.572/2006 OF KOTHAMANGALAM POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED : ------------------------------------ SUBIN, S/O.MUHAMMED, AGED 24 YEARS, KUDILINGAL HOUSE, ELAMBRA BHAGAM, NELLIKUZHIKKARA, ERNAMALLOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.HABEEB RESPONDENT/STATE : --------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.572 OF 2006 OF KOTHAMANGALAM POLICE STATION). BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.V. MANU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ln K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------- B.ANo.7700 OF 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of September , 2011 ORDER The petitioner apprehends arrest in execution of the non bailable warrant issued by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kothamangalam in C.C.No.195 of 2010. 2. The petitioner is the first accused in C.C.No.610 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kothamangalam. During the crime stage, it is stated that the petitioner was granted bail. Thereafter, he went abroad in search of a job. It is stated that the petitioner was not aware of the filing of the final report. The petitioner states that the case against him was split up and the case against the second accused was tried by the court and he was acquitted by the judgment dated 29th April, 2010. Now, the petitioner apprehends arrest in execution of the non bailable warrant. 3. In Vineeth Somarajan @ Ambady v. State of Kerala (2009(3) KHC 471), it was held that where non-bailable B.ANo.7700 OF 2011 2 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 learned Magistrate 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