IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2011 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 10070 of 2011() ------------------------------ CC.234/2010 of C.J.M.,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER /3RD ACCUSED. -------------------------------------------- M.C.NANDANAN, S/O.CHATHUKUTTY, MADATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.PULLUR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC POROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, THRISSUR TOWN EAST POLICE STAION, THRISSUR-688 001. BY P.P.SRI.R.RANJITH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------- B.A. No.10070 OF 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of December, 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Petitioner is accused No.3 in CC No.234 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur. The petitioner apprehends arrest in execution of a non bailable warrant issued by the court and therefore, he has filed this application for anticipatory bail. 2. In paragraphs 2 to 4 of the Bail Application, it is stated thus: “2. The case was initially registered based on a private complaint filed by one Sajeevan alleging that documents of his property were produced by him before the Trichur Urban Co-operative Bank, of which the petitioner was the manager. The Sajeevan had placed the title deeds of his property with the bank when the loan was applied for. According to the Sajeevan he had not availed the loan actually though the title deeds were surrendered. He allegedly went abroad and B.A.No. 10070 OF 2011 2 when he came back he realised that loan had actually been availed by someone fraudulently. It is raising these allegations that the complainant was filed. He had filed a private complaint initially before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate against all the 3 accused. That complaint was referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Crime No.635 of 2001 of Trichur Town East Police Station was registered. Investigation was conducted. Refer report was filed by the police after such investigation. The Sajeevan raised objections and filed a complaint/petition purportedly under Sections 190 and 173(8) I.P.C. A true copy of the complaint filed by the Sajeevan is produced here with and marked as Annexure-A1. That petition was dismissed by the learned Magistrate. The said Sajeevan came to this Court and by order dated 7.7.2005, Crl.M.C.No.1542 of 2003 filed by the Sajeevan was dismissed with observations. As permitted under that order, Sajeevan wanted the complaint filed by him to be prosecuted. In that the Sajeevan examined himself and cognizance was taken on the basis of such sworn statement tendered by him. 3. The same was challenged by the other accused filing Crl.M.C.No.3299 of 2008. This Hon'ble Court allowed the Crl.M.C quashing the cognizance taken and directed the Magistrate to conduct a proper enquiry. A true copy of the order dated 4.11.2008 of this Hon'ble Court in Crl.M.C No.3299 of 2008 is produced here with and marked as Annexure- AII. Till that time the petitioner was staying in the address as shown in Annexure-AI. Then the petitioner changed his residence to present address. 4. It is submitted that after that no summons was received from the court below after that. Now the petitioner came to know that the court below had issued a non bailable warrant against the petitioner for non B.A.No. 10070 OF 2011 3 appearance in CC No.234 of 2010. The C.C.No.234 of 2010 was taken on file by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur after conducting enquiry under Section 202 of Code of Criminal Procedure as directed in Annexure-AII. Since the summons was sent in the old address the petitioner could not attend the court.” 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. 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