IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6818 of 2008() ----------------------------- ST.287/2006 of J.M.F.C.-III, PUNALUR .................... PETITIONER -------------------- THOMAS JOHN MUTHOOT, MUTHOOT HOUSE, KOZHENCHERRY PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.STEPHEN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, GRADE II PUNALUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 6818 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th November, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 21(2) and 22 of the Maternity Benefit Act. Petitioner is the sole accused in S.T.No.289/2006 before the Magistrate Court, Punalur. Petitioner had appeared before the court on receipt of summons and he was released on bail. During the trial, he was continuously absent and hence, non bailable warrant was issued against him. Petitioner apprehends arrest and therefore, this petition is filed for anticipatory bail. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was appearing before the Magistrate Court regularly, but learned Magistrate was transferred and thereafter, the case was not called and he did not appear, since there was no posting. Later, he came to know that non bailable warrant was issued against him from another Magistrate Court. It appears that in the mean time, the case was transferred to another court. In the peculiar circumstances, petitioner apprehends arrest and hence, he may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. He did not appear only because he was not aware of transfer of the case. BA.6818/08 2 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed this anticipatory bail application and pointed out that petitioner has been absconding in various other cases also. If the petition is aggrieved by the order issuing non bailable warrant, his remedy is not to file anticipatory bail application, it is submitted. It is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, it is clear that petitioner apprehends arrest not on accusation of commission of any non bailable offence. His arrest is sought for, in execution of a non- bailable warrant, which is issued by the Magistrate Court, since he has failed to appear before the court. The warrant was issued for ensuring his presence during trial and it cannot be said that the apprehension of arrest is on accusation of a commission of non bailable offence. Therefore, going by the language of Section 438 Cr.P.C, anticipatory bail cannot be granted (vide Rajeevan v. State of Kerala (2008(4)KLT 98). Petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate Court without delay and whether he surrenders or not police is at liberty to execute the warrant issued against him. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.