IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2011 / 2ND POUSHA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 10727 of 2011 LPR.253/2007 of J.M.F.C., KODUNGALLUR CRIME NO.66 OF 2005 OF VALAPPAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR. PETITIONER : ACCUSED NO.6: ------------------------------ RAFEEQ,S/O.MUHAMMED, KUNNATHU VALAPPIL HOUSE, KATTAKAMBAL, PAZHANJI, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ SRI.P.M.ABDUL JALEEL (KODUNGALLUR) RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALAPPAD POLICE STATION THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.K.RAJEEV THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Bail Appl. NO. 10727 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2011 O R D E R The petitioner apprehends arrest in execution of the non- bailable warrant issued in L.P.R.No.253 of 2007, on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kodungallur, in which the petitioner is accused No.6. It is stated that the petitioner was employed in a Gulf country and, therefore, he could not appear before Court for the trial of the case. It is also submitted that there were 45 accused persons in the case and except accused Nos.1 to 8, all the other accused persons were acquitted after trial by the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Irinjalakuda in S.C.No.522 of 2006. 2. 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 whom the warrant is issued has to approach the Court which issued the warrant for re-calling the BAIL APPL. NO.10727 OF 2011 :: 2 :: 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). In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Bail Application is closed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court which issued the warrant to recall the warrant and to grant bail. When an application for bail is filed by the petitioner, the learned Magistrate shall consider the same in the light of the principles laid down in Vineeth Somarajan's case. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/