IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 953 of 2010() -------------------------------- CRIME NO. 246/2008 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION ...................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED : ---------------------------- ZUBAIR, MUNEER MANZIL BEKAL KUNNIL, HADDAD NAGAR, PALLIKKARA PO, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.MUHAMMED SHAFI RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. V. TEKCHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 953 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of February, 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.4 in Crime No.246/2008 of Bekal Police Station, Kasaragod District. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 366 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The date of occurrence was on 01.06.2008. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that after completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed on 18.09.2009. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner was absconding and therefore, non bailable warrant was issued by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner apprehends arrest in execution of the non bailable warrant and therefore he has approached this Court for Anticipatory Bail. 5. 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 B.A. No. 953 of 2010 2 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]. 6. 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. 7. The petitioner submits with reference to Annexure 2 that his wedding is scheduled to be solemnised on 01.03.2010. If he is arrested in the meanwhile, the petitioner as well as the bride and bride's people would be put to great hardship and untold misery. Therefore, the counsel submits that there may be a direction to the investigating officer not to arrest accused No.4 (Zubair) atleast till 3rd March 2010. Though the allegation is that the accused persons abducted the de facto complainant on the date of her wedding and thereby defeated her right to get married, I think that the court need not be harsh towards the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will B.A. No. 953 of 2010 3 be a direction that the petitioner in Bail Application No.953/2010 (Zubair-accused No.4)shall not be arrested in connection with Crime No.246/2008 of Bekal Police Station, Kasaragod, till 03.03.2010, in execution of the non bailable warrant or otherwise. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln