IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 9300 of 2011() ----------------------------- SC.455/2008 of I ADDL.SUB COURT, THRISSUR CRIME NO.50/2007 OF VADANAPALLY POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.5 : ------------------------- RAJEEV, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. SANKARAN, PALLIYERY HOUSE, THALIKKULAM VILLAGE PUTHUKALAM DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.U.NAZAR SRI.MANSOOR.B.H. RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT/STATE -------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VADANAPALLY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DIST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.K.RAJEEV THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.No.9300 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 09th day of November, 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.5 in S.C.No.455 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the first Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Thrissur. 2. The case arises out of Crime No.50 of 2007 of Vadanapally Police Station. It is stated in paragraph 2 of the Bail Application thus:- “2. It is submitted that on 17/6/2010, the case was posted for framing charge the petitioner was absent due to fever, though an absent application was moved on behalf of the petitioner, the same was dismissed and the learned trial judge has issued non bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner.” 3. The petitioner apprehends that he will be arrested in execution of the non-bailable warrant. Therefore, he has filed this Application for anticipatory bail. 4. In Vineeth Somarajan @ Ambady v. State of Kerala (2009 (3) KHC 471), it was held that where non- Bail Appln.No.9300/2011 : 2 : 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. It was also noticed in that decision that when such an application for bail is filed, the court has to dispose of the Bail Application in the light of the principles laid down in Biju v. State of Kerala (2007 (2) KLT 280). 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 skj