IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2009 / 26TH POUSHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 323 of 2009() ---------------------------------- CC.714/2008 of J.M.F.C.,VADAKKANCHERRY CRIME NO.333/2003 OF WADAKKANCHERRY POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4 : ----------------------------------- SHELSON, S/O.MATHEW, PUTHUR HOUSE, PULLANIKAD, WADAKKANCHERRY, THALAPPALLY TALUK BY ADV. SRI.T.I.DANIEL RESPONDENTS/STATE : ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, WADAKKANCHERRY POLICE STATION, WADAKKANCHERRY. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------- B.A. No.323 OF 2009 ---------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of January, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 27(1) of Arms Act. According to prosecution, petitioner along with others committed various offences. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was on bail during the trial stage. Since he was employed abroad, he had to join duty and therefore, non bailable warrants were issued against petitioner. The co-accused were acquitted by trial court finding that weapons involved in the case will not come under Section 27(1) of the Arms Act. The only offence committed is 27(1) of the Arms Act. Therefore petitioner requested for anticipatory bail. On hearing both sides, it is clear that petitioner apprehends arrest not on account of accusation of having committed any non bailable offence but, since he absconded and a non bailable warrant was issued by a competent court. Section 438 Cr.P.C. will apply only if petitioner apprehends B.A.No.323 of 2009 2 arrest on accusation of having committed a non bailable offence. The offence allegedly committed and the arrest apprehended must have nexus between the two, for invoking provision under Section 438 Cr.P.C. This case does not come within purview of Section 438 Cr.P.C. and hence, anticipatory bail cannot be granted by this court. However, taking into consideration the various facts submitted by learned counsel for petitioner, the following order is passed : Petitioner, if surrenders before the Magistrate court, and files an application for bail, shall be disposed of by the learned Magistrate, as expeditiously as possible, without any delay and if prior notice is given to learned Public Prosecutor. The petition is disposed of accordingly. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac