IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2010 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1932 of 2010() ----------------------------- CP.51/2008 of ADDL.C.J.M.,TRIVANDRUM CRIME NO. 26/2008 OF POOJAPPURA POLICE STATION, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED : --------------------------- AJITH, PUTHENVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, ALATHARA, SREEKARIYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POOJAPPURA POLICE STATION, POOJAPPURA. BY SRI. M.S.BREEZ PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No.1932 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 25th 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 C.P.No. 51/2008 on the file of the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. It is stated that the Crime was registered as 26/2008 of Poojappura Police Station for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner states that he was not arrested during the crime stage. It is stated that after filing the charge sheet, he did not receive summons. Non bailable warrant was issued against him. The case against him was registered as long pending case and it is numbered as L.P. No. 136/2009. The petitioner apprehends arrest in execution of the non bailable warrant. Therefore, he has filed this application for anticipatory bail. 3. In Vineeth Somarajan @ Ambadi Vs. State of Kerala [2009 (3) KHC 471] it was held that in cases where non bailable B.A. No.1932 of 2010 2 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. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln