IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2009 / 2ND POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6997 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.78/2001 OF VENMONY POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT PETITIONER : ACCUSED ------------------------------ MADHUSOODHANAN PILLAI, AGED 43 YEARS S/O. CHANDRAN PILLAI, MADHU NIVAS, VENMONY VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.R.PADMAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6997 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2009 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.274 of 2001 which was pending before the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Chengannur. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 447, 427 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The crime was registered as Crime No.78 of 2001 of Venmony Police Station for the offences mentioned above. After completing the investigation, charge was laid in the case. The case was numbered as C.C.No.274 of 2001 before the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Chengannur. It is stated that the petitioner was released on bail by the learned Magistrate. Thereafter, the petitioner went abroad. He failed to appear before court. Bail bonds were cancelled and non bailable warrant was issued to arrest the petitioner. The petitioner apprehends arrest in execution of the non bailable warrant. 4. In Vineeth Somarajan @ Ambady vs. State of BA No.6997/2009 2 Kerala (2009(3) KHC 471), it was held that in cases 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 warrant and for the grant of bail. He cannot, normally, straight away approach the High Court invoking 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 vs. State of Kerala (2007(2) KLT 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 csl