IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 1049 of 2010() ---------------------------------------- CRIME NO.246/2008 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION. ............... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 ------------------------------------------ HABEEB @ MOHAMMED RAFEEQ, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.K.K. ABDULLA, MUBARAK MANZIL, UDMA WEST P.O., KASARGODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KREALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.V. TEKCHAND. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 1049 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of February, 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 accused No.3 in Crime No.246/2008 of Bekal Police Station, Kasaragod District. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 366 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The date of occurrence was on 01.06.2008. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that after completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed on 18.09.2009. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner was absconding and therefore, non bailable warrant was issued by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner apprehends arrest in execution of the non bailable warrant and therefore he has approached this Court for Anticipatory Bail. 5. In Vineeth Somarajan @ Ambadi Vs. State of Kerala [2009 (3) KHC 471] it was held that in cases where non B.A. No. 1049 of 2010 2 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 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