IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH OCTOBER 2011 / 12TH ASWINA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 8061 of 2011() ----------------------------- ST NO.4710/2009 JFCM, MUVATTUPUZHA PETITIONER : ACCUSED ------------------------------ SHIJI ANOOP, AGED 35,W/O.ANOOP, PARAPATTU HOUSE, PAMPAKUDA KARA, PAMPAKUDA P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM P.GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. NANDINI, AGED 57, W/O.NARAYANAN. ARCHANA BHAVAN, KOOTHATTUKULAM KARA, KOOTHATTUKULAM VILLAGE. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A.No.8061 of 2011 --------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of October, 2011 O R D E R The petitioner apprehends arrest in execution of a non bailable warrant in ST No.4710 of 2009 on the file of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Muvattupuzha. The case was initiated on a complaint filed by the second respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner states that she did not receive summons in the case. The court issued non bailable warrant for the arrest of the petitioner. 2. It is stated in paragraph 4 of the Bail Application thus : “4. It is submitted that the non appearance of the petitioner before the court below was not at all willful. The address of the petitioner as shown in the petition is that of her husband's house. But during the period 2009-2011, till recently she was not in good terms with her husband and she was constrained to live in a rented house at Velloor. Only in the last month, she came BA 8061/11 2 back as the family disputes were settled due to the intervention of the other family members. The children are even now studying at Velloor. In the above circumstances, nobody informed the petitioner regarding the pendency of the case, issuance of summons and non bailable warrant by the Hon'ble Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Muvattupuzha and she was not all in a position to appear before the court and to apply for bail.” 2. In Vineeth Somarajan vs. State of Kerala (2009 (3) KLT 576), it was held that when warrant is issued against the accused, his remedy is to approach the court which issued the warrant for recalling the warrant and for granting bail; and not to move under Section 438 Crl.P.C. for anticipatory bail. If the petitioner surrenders before court and moves an application for bail and for recalling the warrant, the same would be considered by the court as indicated in Vineeth Somarajan vs. State of Kerala (2009(3) KLT 576). K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl