IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2010 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 1291 of 2010() ---------------------------------------- CC.631/2006 of J.M.F.C.,TALIPARAMBA CRIME NO.49/2006 OF KUDIYANMALA POLICE STATION, KANNUR .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1: ------------------------------------------- VAYALPATH ABDUL NAZAR, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.PAREETH, SREEKANDAPURAM AMSOM DESOM, SREEKANDAPURAM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR (DIST). BY ADV. SRI.P.BABU RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. TEKCHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 1291 of 2010 ------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of March, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.1 in C.C.No.631/2006 on the file of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Taliparamba. 2. The offence alleged against the accused is under Section 498 A read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the crime stage, the petitioner moved an application for anticipatory bail before the High Court and it was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to surrender before the court. Accordingly, the petitioner surrendered before the court and he was released on bail. Thereafter, the petitioner went abroad. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, charge sheet was filed in the case on 12/6/2006. The petitioner states that he did not receive any summons. He came back to India only now. At that time, he came to know that a non bailable warrant is pending against him. He B.A. No. 1291/2010 2 apprehends arrest. Therefore, he has filed this application for anticipatory bail. 4. In Vineeth Somarajan @ Ambadi Vs. State of Kerala [2009(3)KHC 471], it was held that in cases where non-bailable warrant is issued by a court, the proper remedy of the accused is to approach that court which issued the warrant and to apply for recalling that warrant and for the grant of bail. It was also observed in Vineeth Somarajan's case that when such an application for bail is filed, the same has to be considered in the light of the principles laid down in Biju Vs. State of Kerala [2007(2) K.L.T 280]. Reserving the right of the petitioner to move the court which issued the non bailable warrant, for recalling the warrant and for the grant of bail, this Bail Application is closed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm