IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2011 / 22ND ASWINA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 8529 of 2011() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN SC.155/2008 IN LP.24/2009 of ADDL. DIST. COURT (ADHOC)III, PATHANAMTHITTA Crime No.232 of 2007 of Konni Police Station .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- ANEESH, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. RAVEENDRAN PILLAI, MATHERI MANNIL HOUSE, MAVANAL, AYIRAVAN MURI, AYIRAVAN VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KONNI POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P.SRI.K.K.RAJEEV THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------- B.A.No. 8529 OF 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of October, 2011 ORDER The petitioner apprehends arrest in execution of a non bailable warrant issued by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track-III, Pathanamthitta in LP No.24 of 2009 in S.C.No.155 of 2008. It is submitted that the case arose out of Crime No.232 of 2007 of Konni Police Station for the offences under Sections 323, 324 and 308 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. In paragraph 2 of the Bail Application, it is stated thus: “2. It is submitted that the petitioner is innocent of the offences alleged against him. He was arrested during the crime stage of the case and was later released on bail. After completing the investigation, the final report was laid and the petitioner appeared before the committal court. After committal of the case, the petitioner got an employment in abroad and hence he went abroad, Gulf.” B.A.No. 8529 OF 2011 2 3. 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 court 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. cms