IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2010 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1894 of 2010() ---------------------------------------- CRIME NO.433/2009 OF ANCHAL POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- ASHOKAN, S/O.SASI, AGED 29 YEARS, AMBLATHUMMUKAL PUTHEN VEETTIL, AMBALATHUMUKAL, EROM, ANCHAL VILLAGE KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SHYJU RESPONDENT/STATE: ------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANCHAL THRO' PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. M.S. BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 1894 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of March, 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.433/ 2009 of Anchal Police Station, Kollam. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 294(b), 308 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The petitioner filed B.A.No.125/2010 for anticipatory bail. That application was dismissed by the order dated 27/1/2010, reserving the right of the petitioner to move for regular bail. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application in B.A. No.125/2010 stating that non-bailable warrant was issued against the petitioner. That application was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to resort to appropriate remedies. 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. B.A. No. 1894/2010 2 4. 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 that 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.T280]. In Sukumari Vs. State of Kerala [2001(1)K.L.T.22], it was held that the power under Section 437 can be invoked by the Magistrate even in cases involving a Session offence. Reserving the right of the petitioner to move the court which issued the non bailable warrant, for recalling the warrant and for the grant of bail, this Bail Application is closed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm