IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2011 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 8748 of 2011() ----------------------------- CP.377/2011 of J.M.F.C.-I,KASARAGOD CRIME NO.27/2008 OF KUMBLA EXCISE RANGE .................... PETITIONER : ACCUSED ------------------------------ CHINNU @ SUDHA, W/O.KRISHNA,AGED 40 YEARS, GUNDALA HOUSE,KUNJATHUR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD BY ADV. SRI.P.K.ANIL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE EXCISE RANGE OFFICER, KUMBALA EXCISE RANGE, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM 682 031. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.R.RENJITH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A.No.8748 of 2011 --------------------------- Dated this the 3rd ay of November, 2011 O R D E R The petitioner, who is the accused in C.P.No.377 of 2011 on the file of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Kasaragod, apprehends arrest in execution of a non bailable warrant issued by the court. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. 2. It is stated in paragraph 3 of the Bail Application thus : “It is submitted that the petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations. The accused in order to escape from the criminal liability gave the address of the petitioner, the first respondent let off the actual offender without ascertaining her identity. The petitioner is not involved in the above case. It is a clear case of mistaken identity. Now the petitioner is visited with adverse consequences and the first respondent is trying to arrest the petitioner in connection BA 8748/11 2 with the above case in case great prejudice is caused to the petitioner. Petitioner is a house wife having minor children to look after. If she is remanded in custody it will have great emotional impact on the minor children who are attending nearby school.” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the crime stage, the petitioner was not arrested and she was not aware of the pendency of the case. 4. In Vineeth Somarajan vs. State of Kerala (2009 (3) KLT 576), it was held that when warrant is issued against the accused, his remedy is to approach the court which issued the warrant for recalling the warrant and for granting bail; and not to move under Section 438 Crl.P.C. for anticipatory bail. If the petitioner surrenders before court and moves an application for bail and for recalling the warrant, the same would be considered by the court as indicated in Vineeth Somarajan vs. State of Kerala (2009(3) KLT 576). BA 8748/11 3 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