IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2009 / 23RD POUSHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7724 of 2008() ----------------------------- PEITITIONER(S) ------------------------ 1. K.MOHAN DAS S/O. KUNJURAMAN, HINDU,AGED 53, RESIDING AT KILIMANOOR, MANAGING PARTNER, THUSHARA TRADERS POOVAR ROAD, NEYYATTINKARA,TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. 2. G.RAVINDRAN NAIR, S/O.AGED 38, RESIDING AT THINKAL KALA, T.C. 37/392, SAITH NADA STREET, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-23. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMASWAMY PILLAI SRI.P.M.JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PUBLIC PROSECUTION, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI. 2. M/S. VIDEOCON INTERNATIONAL LTD RAVIPURAM JUNCTION, M.G.ROAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------ B.A. No.7724 OF 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of January, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 420 read with 34 of I.P.C. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the details of the allegations are not known to him, since petitioners are accused in a case pending before Magistrate court in Gaziabad. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the case was instituted in the year 2005 and petitioners were once arrested and produced before court and thereafter, they were released on bail. Now, there is no warrant pending against petitioners. But an order was passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court transferring the case from the Gaziabad court to the court in Ernakulam. In such circumstances, anticipatory bail may be granted to petitioners, since petitioners apprehend arrest. On hearing both sides, it appears that the case was instituted in the year 2005, alleging a non bailable offence. It B.A.No.7724 of 2008 2 also appears that petitioners were once granted bail by the Gaziabad court and thereafter, they had not appeared in any court and in all probabilities, non bailable warrant would have been issued for securing the presence of the accused, if the proceedings are pending before any court. Without confirming the relevant details, it may not be proper by this court to invoke provision under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and grant anticipatory bail. If petitioners are required for the purpose of trial in execution of a non bailable warrant lawfully issued by any court, Section 438 cannot be invoked to grant anticipatory bail, since granting of anticipatory bail may interfere in the lawful proceedings before another court. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac