IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2011 / 27TH ASWINA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 8230 of 2011 C.C.NO.1161 OF 2010 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS I, HOSDURG. PETITIONER : ACCUSED NO.1: ------------------------------ M.V.RAMACHANDERAN, S/O.KANNAN, AGED 34, SHYLAJA NIVAS, MADHIRAKAD, PULLUR, HOSDURG, KASARGOD. BY ADV. SMT.REENA ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM-682 031. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HOSDURG POLICE STATION, KANHANGAD- 671 324. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.K.RANJITH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Bail Appl. NO. 8230 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of October, 2011 O R D E R The petitioner is accused No.1 in C.C.No.1161 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class I, Hosdurg. 2. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 493 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It is stated that the petitioner could not appear before Court as he was working abroad. The petitioner relies on Annexure A3, copy of the Passport, to show that he left India on 18.2.2009 and came back to India on 23.9.2011. Due to non-appearance before Court, it is stated that non-bailable warrant was issued against the petitioner. The petitioner apprehends arrest in execution of the non- bailable warrant. Therefore, he has filed this application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. BAIL APPL. NO. 8230 OF 2011 :: 2 :: 4. In Vineeth Somarajan @ Ambady v. State of Kerala (2009 (3) KHC 471), it was held that where non-bailable 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). In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Bail Application is closed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court which issued the warrant to recall the warrant and to grant bail. When an application for bail is filed by the petitioner, the learned Magistrate shall consider the same in the light of the principles laid down in Vineeth Somarajan's case. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/