IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH OCTOBER 2009 / 17TH ASWINA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 4894 of 2009 LP.NO.54 OF 2008 FROM CP.NO.153 OF 2007 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS- II, NEYYATTINKARA PETITIONER: 2ND ACCUSED: ------------------------------ SHAJI, S/O.RAGHAVAN KUZHIMUGHATHU VEEDU, CHERUKARA DESOM CHERUKARA, NEMOM. BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENTS: STATE AND COMPLAINANT: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE THIRUVALLOM POLICE STATION, THIRUVALLOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 4894 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of October, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the second accused in C.P.No.153 of 2007, which is now pending as L.P.No.54 of 2008, on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class – II, Neyyattinkara. 2. The offences alleged against the accused persons are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 308 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It is stated by the petitioner that at the crime stage, he was released on bail in 2005. After completion of the investigation, charge was filed in the case in the year 2007. Meanwhile, the petitioner had gone abroad, submits the counsel for the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he did not receive summons in the case. As the petitioner was absent, the case against him was split up and it was numbered as L.P.No.54 of 2008. Non-bailable warrant was B.A. NO. 4894 OF 2009 :: 2 :: issued by the court below against the petitioner. The petitioner apprehends arrest. 4. In Vineeth Somarajan 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, the remedy of the accused is to file an application for withdrawal of the warrant and for the grant of bail. 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 taking into account the principles laid down in Biju v. State of Kerala (2007(2) KLT 280). 5. In the present case, the petitioner can very well approach the learned Magistrate, apply for withdrawal of the warrant and for the grant of bail. When such applications are filed, the learned Magistrate shall dispose of the same in accordance with law and in the light of the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions. With the above observations, the Bail Applications is closed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/