IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 16TH BHADRA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 7110 of 2011(C) ----------------------------- CRIME No. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER. PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------------------- SHYLAKUMAR S, S/O.SREEDHARAN, RESIDING AT PUTHUVAL CHIRA, WALUCHIRA,THOTTAPPALLY PO, PURAKKADU,AMBALAPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V. MANU. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------- B.A. No.7110 OF 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of September, 2011 ORDER The petitioner apprehends arrest in execution of a warrant issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate's Court (VII), Calcutta. 2. It is stated that the petitioner took a loan from 'Magma Fincorp Limited', a financial institution, for purchasing a car. At the time of availing the loan, post dated cheques were also issued to the financial institution. Defaults were committed in payment of instalments. The financial institution instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Calcutta Court. It is submitted that the loan was availed from the Kottayam Branch of Magma Fincorp Limited. The petitioner apprehends arrest in execution of the non bailable warrant. 3. In Vineeth Somarajan @ Ambady v. State of B.A. No.7110 OF 2011 2 Kerala (2009(3) KHC 471), it was held that where non-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. However, in the present case the warrant was issued by a court in Calcutta. The only relief which the petitioner prays is to grant a breathing time to him to appear before the appropriate court in Calcutta and to make application for bail and for withdrawing the warrant. In the light of the principles laid down in Koshy v. State of Kerala [2010(1) KLT 945], I am inclined to grant relief to the petitioner to enable him to appear before the appropriate Court within a period of one month. 4. Accordingly, the Bail Application is disposed of as follows: a) In case the petitioner is arrested within a period of one month from today, in execution of the warrant issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate's Court (VII), B.A. No.7110 OF 2011 3 Calcutta, the petitioner shall be released on bail on his furnishing bond for Rs.25,000/-. b) Within the aforesaid period of one month, the petitioner shall appear before the Metropolitan Magistrate's Court (VII), Calcutta, in Case No.C/6960/11 and seek appropriate reliefs. It is made clear that this order will have effect and force only for a period of one month. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms