IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD OCTOBER 2009 / 1ST KARTHIKA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5932 of 2009() ------------------------------------- CRMP.3138/2009 of DISTRICT COURT, KASARAGOD CRIME NO.582/2007 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD. .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- V.KARUNAKARAN, S/O. P.MUTHU NAIR, KAKKAMADAM HOUSE, PERUMBALA VILLAGE, KASARGOD. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KASARGOD POLICE STATION. 2. STATE REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. M.S. BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 5932 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd 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 accused No.3 in Crime No.582/2007 of Kasaragod Police Station, which is now pending as C.P. No.146/2009 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kasaragod. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 341, 324 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It is stated that the petitioner was not named as an accused in the F.I statement. Subsequently, final report was filed implicating the petitioner as the 3rd accused . According to the prosecution, the petitioner was all throughout absconding. The case was being proceeded with in C.P.No.41/2009. Since the petitioner was absconding, the case against him was split up and later it was re-umbered as C.P. No.146/2009. The learned Magistrate issued a non- bailable warrant against the petitioner. The petitioner B.A. No. 5932/ 2009 2 apprehends arrest in execution of the non-bailable warrant. According to the petitioner, he was not aware of the filing of the charge sheet and the pendency of the case before the Magistrate's court. 4. In Vineeth Somarajan @ Ambadi Vs. State of Kerala [2009(3) K.H.C.471], it was held that in cases where non- bailable warrant is issued by a court, the remedy of the accused person is to approach that court and to apply for withdrawal of warrant and for the grant of bail. The accused cannot, normally, approach the High Court by filing a petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was also held therein that when an application for bail is filed in such cases, the court has to consider the Bail Application in the light of the principles laid down in Biju Vs. State of Kerala [2007(2) K.L.T.280]. Leaving open the right of the petitioner to move the court which issued warrant to recall the warrant and for the grant of bail, this Bail Application is closed. If a Bail Application is filed by the petitioner, the same shall be considered by the court in the light of the decisions referred to above. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm