IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2010 / 16TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 7104 of 2009() ----------------------------- SC.871/2007 of I ADDL.SUB COURT, THRISSUR CRIME NO.808/2006 OF KUNNAKULAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED ----------------------------------------- SANOOP, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.SASI, THOTTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KANIPPAYOOR, KUNNAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING S.I. OF POLICE, KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.7104 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of January, 2010 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.3 in S.C.No.871 of 2007 on the file of the First Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Thrissur. 2. The petitioner states that the case was posted to 9.9.2009. On that day, he reached the court a little bit late. At the time when he reached the court, the case was just over and the other accused were coming out of the court. The court issued non bailable warrant against him. It is submitted that he did not apply for recalling the non bailable warrant and for the grant of bail since he was told that bail will be granted only after remanding the petitioner for one or two days. The petitioner apprehends arrest in execution of the non bailable warrant. Therefore, he has filed this application for anticipatory bail. 3. In Vineeth Somarajan @ Ambady vs. State of Kerala (2009(3) KHC 471), it was held that in cases where non bailable warrant is issued by the court on account of non BA No.7104/2009 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 invoking 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 vs. State of Kerala (2007(2) KLT 280). Reserving the right of the petitioner to move the court which issued the warrant to recall the warrant and to grant bail, this Bail Application is closed. If an application for bail is filed, the same shall be considered by the court in the light of the decisions referred to above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl