IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2011 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 8815 of 2011 C.P.NO.47 OF 2010 OF JFMC-I, ERNAKULAM. CRIME NO.547 OF 2009 OF ERNAKULAM NORTH POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- SUCHITHRAN,CHITHRANJALI,PUTHENVILA, POWDIKONAM.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENT: STATE -------------------- 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 24/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Bail Appl. NO. 8815 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of October, 2011 O R D E R The petitioner states that he is the accused in C.P.No.47 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class I, Ernakulam. The case arose out of Crime No.547 of 2009 of Ernakulam North Police Station. It is stated that the petitioner was arrested and released on bail at the crime stage. He also states that he did not receive any summons after the final report was filed. Due to non-appearance of the petitioner, non-bailable warrant was issued by the Court. The petitioner apprehends arrest in execution of the non-bailable warrant issued by the Court. Therefore, he has filed this application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. 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 BAIL APPL.NO.8815 OF 2011 :: 2 :: 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). In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Bail Application is closed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court which issued the warrant to recall the warrant and to grant bail. When an application for bail is filed by the petitioner, the learned Magistrate shall consider the same in the light of the principles laid down in Vineeth Somarajan's case. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/