IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 13TH MARCH 2007 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1928 Bail Appl..No. 1357 of 2007(G) ------------------------------ CRIME NO. 24/2000 OF PARASSALA POLICE STATION PETITIONER --------------------------- G.R.MANU, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.RAVEENDRAN, AMRITHA VIDEO LAB, VINCENT TOWER, MARTHANDOM, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAVIKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.(CRIME NO.24/2000 OF PARASSALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL). BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/03/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. ------------------------------- Bail Application No. 1357 of 2007 ------------------------------- DATED: 13th March 2007 O R D E R Petitioner who is the accused in Crime No. 24/2000 of Parassala Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 354, 341, 447, 323, 506(1) and Sections 3(1)X and 3(1)(iii) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, seeks anticipatory bail. The petitioner would have it that after the final charge was filed in this case he had shifted his residence to Thiruvananthapuram by virtue of his employment and he has not received any summons either from the Sessions court or from the Committal Court. While so, non-bailable warrants of arrest are issued against him. 2. Anticipatory bail cannot be granted to nullify the process issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. There is no reason why the petitioner should not surrender before the committal court and seek regular bail, particularly when C.P. 166/03 is pending before the committal court namely, J.F.C.M.-II, Neyyattinkara. 4. Accordingly, if the petitioner surrenders before the Bail A.No. 1357 of 2007 -:2:- committal court and files an application for regular bail, the same shall be considered and disposed of preferably on the same date on which it is filed after examining the explanation offered by the petitioner and also after considering his contention that he had not been received summons from the committal court. With the above observation this application is disposed of. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. ani