IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2010 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1734 of 2010() ---------------------------------- CC.1807/2007 of J.M.F.C.-I,THRISSUR CRIME NO. 224/2007 OF THRISSUR TOWN EAST POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED : ------------------------------ 1. K.K.KRISHNAN NAMBOODIRI, KOSSERY MANA, KANNAMKULANGARA, THRISSUR (NOW RESIDING AT M.G.KAVU, THRISSUR 2. ARYADEVI, W/O.K.K.KRISHNAN NAMBOODIRI, KOSSERY MANA, KANNAMKULANGARA, THRISSUR (NOW RESIDING AT M.G.KAVU, THRISSUR BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA/SI OF POLICE, THRISSUR TOWN EAST POLICE STATION, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. M.S.BREEZ PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 1734 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of April, 2010 O R D E R Apprehending arrest in execution of non bailable warrant issued in C.C.No.1807/2007 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Thrissur, the petitioner has approached this court for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 3 in C.C.No. 1807/2007. It is stated that the offences alleged against them are under Sections 417 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation is that the petitioners and others sold an item of immovable property to one Shahul Hammed. The petitioners had liability to pay sales tax. For the sales tax arrears, the property sold to Shahul Hammed was about to be sold. In order to salvage the property, Shahul Hammeed had to deposit Rs. 2,16,003/-. According to Shahul Hammed, the petitioners and others had cheated him in the matter of sale of the immovable property, since they suppressed the fact that there was encumbrance on the property. B.A. No. 1734 of 2010 2 3. It is not necessary to consider the merits of this contention. The petitioners are sought to be arrested in execution of non bailable warrant issued by the Court. 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 the 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 warrant to recall the warrant and to grant bail, this Bail Application is closed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln