IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 18TH JULY 2008 / 27TH ASHADHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4531 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRMP.2612/2008 of C.J.M.,THODUPUZHA CRIME NO. 724/200O OF THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION PETITIONER : ACCUSED NO.23 ------------------------------ BUHARI, S/O. SHAHUL HAMEED, AGED 32, RESIDING AT THAYIL HOUSE, KUNNAM KARA, MUTHALAKODAM.P.O, THODUPUZHA VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 4531 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of July, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail 2. Petitioner was on bail at the crime stage. Thereafter, during the trial, he did not appear before the court, since he obtained a job abroad. Hence, a non-bailable warrant was issued against him and the case was entered in the register of long pending cases and it was numbered as L.P. No.51/2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appearing during trial, but he could not appear in court later only because he obtained a job abroad. It is submitted that the petitioner is hailing from a poor family and his mother is ailing and she is in the hospital. 3. On hearing both sides, it is clear that the petitioner's arrest is required not on account of accusation that he is involved in a non-bailable offence. But, his arrest is required because of the non-bailable warrant issued by the trial court. Once a warrant is issued from a court lawfully, it has to be executed. If anticipatory bail is granted, that will interfere with the lawful proceedings before the trial court. A reading of section 438 Cr.P.C. shows that powers under the said provision can be exercised only if BA 4531/08 -2- the person apprehends arrest on accusation of a non bailable offence. In this case, the apprehension of the arrest is not on account of commission of any non bailable offence, but it is due to a lawful order issued by the trial court for his arrest, since the petitioner was admittedly absenting himself during the trial. Hence, there is no ground to grant anticipatory bail. This application is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. mn.