IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 9167 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.725/2010 OF HARIPPAD POLICE STATION PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED : ------------------------------- SHANAVAS, S/O. SULAIMAN RAWTHER, SHANAVAS MANZIL, KADAKKAD, PANDALAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.J.THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.K.RAJEEV THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A.No.9167 of 2011 --------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of November, 2011 O R D E R The petitioner apprehends arrest in execution of a non bailable warrant issued in C.C.No.75 of 2011 on the file of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Harippad. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 498(A) and 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal code. 2. It is stated in paragraph 6 of the Bail Application thus : “Now, after investigation, the final report was filed and the same is pending as C.C.No.75/2011 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Harippad. Now non bailable warrant is pending against the petitioner even though no summons was served on him. The petitioner is ready to appear before the investigating officer or before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Harippad. It is apprehended that as non-bailable warrant is pending, the petitioner may not be released on bail. The petitioner is ready to abide to any BA 9167/11 2 of the conditions to be imposed by this Hon'ble Court. The petitioner is ready to participate in the trial. It is prayed that anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner on such conditions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and necessary.” 3. In Vineeth Somarajan vs. State of Kerala (2009 (3) KLT 576), it was held that when warrant is issued against the accused, his remedy is to approach the court which issued the warrant for recalling the warrant and for granting bail; and not to move under Section 438 Crl.P.C. for anticipatory bail. If the petitioner surrenders before court and moves an application for bail and for recalling the warrant, the same would be considered by the court as indicated in Vineeth Somarajan vs. State of Kerala (2009(3) KLT 576). 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 csl