IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2010 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2148 of 2010() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.205/2005 OF PAZHAYANNUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISITRICT) PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.22 -------------------------------------------- SREELAL, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN, KOYAPPURATH HOUSE, CHERUVALLY.P.O, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAZHAYANNUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.KAMAPPU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 2148 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of April, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.22 in Crime No.205/2005 of Pazhayannur Police Station, Thrissur District, which is now pending as C.P. No. 75/2009 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Wadakkanchery. The petitioner apprehends arrest in execution of the non bailable warrant issued by the Court. Therefore, he has field this application for anticipatory bail. 2. The occurrence was in 2005. The petitioner was arrested during the crime stage. It is stated that all the disputes and differences between the petitioners and others on the one hand and SDF Industries Limited on the other, were settled. Annexure A order shows that in C.C. No.538/2007, another case, the offence was compounded. Annexure B shows that the petitioner was accused No.3 in C.C. No. 434/2007 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Wadakkanchery and the proceedings in that case were quashed on the ground that the matter was settled between the parties. B.A. No. 2148 / 2010 2 Annexure C shows that the Board of Directors of the company decided to settle the criminal cases or to withdraw or compound the same. 3. These are all matters which the petitioner would be able to submit before the learned Magistrate, before whom the petitioner has to surrender. 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]. The petitioner will be free to raise all the aforesaid contentions before the learned Magistrate for consideration at the time of considering the request for bail. The Bail Application is disposed of as above. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln