IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 25TH JULY 2008 / 3RD SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4669 of 2008() ----------------------------- CC.242/2004 of ADDL.C.J.M.,THALASSERY CRIME NO.253/08 OF CHOKLY POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED 2ND:- ----------------------------------------- LATHEEF, S/O USMAN, PERINGANNOR, PULIYANAMBRATH, KIDARANDAVIDA VEEDU, THALASSERY TALUKE, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.LUIZ GODWIN D'COUTH RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No.4669 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th July, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 403 and 498A read with 109 of Indian Penal Code. Petitioner is the second accused in the crime. He is the brother-in-law of the de facto complainant. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the entire matter is settled between the de facto complainant and the petitioner's mother and sister, as per Annexure-A agreement. Based on the above, the co-accused are acquitted as per Annexure-B judgment. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner could not appear in court only because he was working abroad. Petitioner's brother, who is the husband of the de facto complainant, also was working abroad. Since the matter is settled between the parties, it is submitted that he may be granted anticipatory bail. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that non-bailable warrant was issued from the court below against the petitioner, since he was throughout absent in the court below during trial. His BA.4669/08 2 arrest is required for the purpose of trial, since warrant has been issued. Since the petitioner was absconding, the case was entered into the register of long pending cases and warrants are issued against him. Therefore, anticipatory bail may not be granted, it is submitted. 6. On hearing both sides, I find that going by the language of Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner cannot be granted anticipatory bail, since his apprehension of arrest is not on account of the fact that he is accused of a non-bailable offence but it is since he has been absent in the court. His presence is required in execution of the warrant which is lawfully issued from a competent court having jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Therefore, anticipatory bail cannot be granted, since it will interfere with the proceedings of the lower court. 7. However, the petitioner is at liberty to surrender before the court below and bring to its notice, his bonafides in the matter, in which event, the application for bail, if any, filed by the petitioner, will be considered on merit and disposed of, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. With these observations, petition is disposed of. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.