IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 4TH ASWINA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 7930 of 2011() ----------------------------- CC.812/2007 of ADDL.C.J.M., ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER : ACCUSED : -------------------- SURENDRAN, S/O.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, AGED 51, S/34, SANTHI NAGAR, NEAR KINAR BUS STOP, NADAMA VILLAGE, THRIPPUNITHURA. BY ADV. SRI.SABU GEORGE RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CITY TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, KOCHI CITY, THRIPUNITHURA WING. (RESPONDENT IS REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM). PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.No.7930 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of September, 2011 ORDER The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.812 of 2007 on the file of the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 279 and 304 (A) of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It is submitted that during the crime stage, the petitioner was released on bail. After receiving summons in the case, the petitioner entered appearance and a counsel was also engaged. It is stated that the counsel failed to inform about the date of posting and therefore he could not appear before court. A non-bailable warrant was issued. The petitioner apprehends arrest in execution of the non-bailable warrant. Therefore, he has filed this Bail Application. 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 Bail Appln.No.7930/2011 : 2 : 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). 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. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE skj