IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2010 / 24TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 213 of 2010() ----------------------------------------- (CR.NO.204/08 OF PAMPADY POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM) ...... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- JAI JACOB ABRAHAM, AGED 36 YEARS, KANNU KUZHIYIL HOUSE, PAMPADY.P.O, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER-BABYKUTTY ABRAHAM, RESIDING AT KANNUKUZHIYIL HOUSE, PAMPADY.P.O, KOTTAYAM. BY ADVS. MR.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE, MR.SIBY CHENAPPADY, SMT. PARVATHY P.V., SMT. REENA THOMAS, MR.RAM MOHAN.L. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAMPADY POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 213 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of January, 2010 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 accused in Crime No.204/2008 of Pampady Police Station, Kottayam. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Originally, apart from the petitioner, three other persons were also made accused in the crime. Later, the names of accused Nos.2 to 4 were deleted from the array of accused. Now the petitioner is the sole accused. 4. After completing the investigation, charge was laid in the case. The case was numbered as C.C. No. 960/2008 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Kottayam. Since the presence of the petitioner could not be secured, the case was treated as Long Pending Case and it is numbered as L.P. No. 230/2009. It is stated that a non bailable warrant is pending against the petitioner. The petitioner B.A. No. 213 of 2010 2 apprehends arrest in execution of the non bailable warrant. 5. The petitioner and two other accused filed Crl. M.P.No. 1718/2008 before the Court of Sessions, Kottayam under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for anticipatory bail. As per the order dated 18.07.2008, Anticipatory Bail was granted to the petitioner and two other accused. The learned Sessions Judge held that on the arrest of the petitioners within one month, the Sub Inspector of Police shall release them on bail on executing a bond for Rs. 30,000/- each with two solvent sureties. It is submitted that the petitioners therein were not arrested within one month and there was no occasion for them for complying with the conditions in the order. It is also mentioned in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge that a petition for divorce was pending and that divorce was sought by the wife on the allegation that the marriage was not consummated. It was also noticed in the order that there was no specific allegation of dowry harassment. The learned Sessions Judge noticed that custody of the accused was not required for the purpose of investigation. B.A. No. 213 of 2010 3 6. In Vineeth Somarajan @ Ambadi Vs. State of Kerala [2009 (3) KHC 471] it was held that in cases where non bailable warrant is issued by a court, the proper remedy of the accused is to approach that court which issued the warrant and to apply for recalling the warrant and for the grant of bail. It was also observed in Vineeth Somarajan's case that when such an application for bail is filed, the same has to be considered in the light of the principles laid down in Biju Vs. State of Kerala [2007 (2) K.L.T. 280]. 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. If the petitioner files an application for the said purpose, the learned Magistrate shall consider and dispose of the same in the light of the principles laid down in the decisions referred to above and in the light of the facts and circumstances mentioned above. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln