IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH OCTOBER 2011 / 3RD KARTHIKA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 8903 of 2011() ----------------------------- ST.2880/2006 of J.M.F.C. MUVATUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER : ACCUSED : -------------------- GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, S/O.JANARDHANAN NAIR, RESIDING AT KOCHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, POONJAR, PANACHIPPARA.P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU RESPONDENT: --------------- THE 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 25/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.No.8903 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of October, 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in S.T. No.2880 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Moovattupuzha. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the crime stage, the petitioner was not arrested and he was not aware of the proceedings before Court. It would appear that after filing the final report, since the petitioner did not appear, the case was treated as long pending as against him. Non-bailable warrant is pending against the petitioner. The petitioner apprehends arrest in execution of the non-bailable warrant. Therefore, this Bail Application is filed. 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- Bail Appln.No.8903/2011 : 2 : 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