IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN SATURDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 9256 of 2011() ----------------------------- CC.1436/2005 of J.M.F.C.-II,KOTTARAKKARA .................... PETITIONER : ACCUSED --------------------------- SURESH, S/O.SADASIVAN RADHAVILASAM, KADAKKODU KAREEPRA, KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE BRISTON SRI.V.P.PRASANTH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT --------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POOYAPALLY POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.R.RENJITH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A.No.9256 of 2011 --------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of November, 2011 O R D E R The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.1436 of 2005 on the file of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Kottarakkara. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 341 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It is stated by the petitioner that he was granted bail at the crime stage and after the final report was filed, on summons, he appeared before court. It is stated in paragraphs 4 & 5 of the Bail Application thus : “4. It is submitted that CW1 was examined and the notice was issued to CW2 and the case was posted for examination of CW1. It is submitted that in the meantime, the petitioner got an employment in Chennai. Thereafter, the case was posted on BA 9256/11 2 22.11.2007 and there was no representation on 22.11.2007. Warrant was issued against the petitioner and the warrant was repeated on several occasions. It is submitted that when the petitioner came for leave on the first week of November, then he got information that the warrant is pending against him. On enquiry, it is understood that the case was posted to 2.1.2012. Non appearance before the Hon'ble Court is only due to reason that he is away in connection with his employment. 5. It is submitted that the petitioner could not present before the learned Magistrate only because of the reason that he was out of station in connection with his employment, and there is no willful latches or negligence from the part of the petitioner in not appearing before the learned Magistrate.” 3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in execution of the non bailable warrant. Therefore, he has filed this application for anticipatory bail. BA 9256/11 3 4. 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. 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 csl