IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 9598 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.550/2001 OF KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED : ---------------------- UMMER AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. KUNJIMOHAMMED, EDAVAZHIKKAL VEEDU, SREENARAYANAPURAM VILLAGE KODUNGALLUR TALUK, KOTHAPARAMBU P.O. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN RESPONDENT: --------------- 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 29/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.No.9598 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of November, 2011 ORDER The petitioner apprehends arrest in execution of a non- bailable warrant issued by the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Kannur in L.P.R.No.91 of 2004. It is stated that the petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.550 of 2001 of Kannur Town Police Station for the offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The Bail Application is bereft of details. However, it is stated that the case is now pending as L.P.R.No.91 of 2004 on the file of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Kannur. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that non-bailable warrant was issued against the petitioner. It is not stated as to what transpired from 2001 to 2011. It is not stated whether petitioner received summons or whether the petitioner was granted bail during the crime stage. None of the details necessary for a just and proper consideration are available in the bail application. The counsel is not aware of those details. Bail Appln.No.9598/2011 : 2 : 4. In Vineeth Somarajan @ Ambady v. State of Kerala (2009 (3) KHC 471), it was held that 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 by filing a Bail Application under 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 v. 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 skj