IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 7585 of 2010 -------------------------------------- [C.C. NO.318/2009 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT-I, HOSDURG] .................. PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------- SALJITH, S/O.GANGADHARAN, AGEDL 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT BELUR HOUSE, ANDOL, KARINDHALAM, NILESHWAR VIA, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU RESPONDENT/STATE: -------------------------------- THE FOOD INSPECTOR, KANHANGAD CIRCLE, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.S. HRITHWIK. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. V. RAMKUMAR, J. ------------------------------- Bail Application No. 7585 of 2010 ------------------------------- DATED: 19th November, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner who is the accused in C.C. No. 318 of 2009 on the file of the J.F.C.M. I, Hosdurg, for offences punishable under Sections 16(1-A), 2 (19) (i) and 7 (1) of the P.F.A. Act, 1954 and Rule 29 of the P.F.A. Rules 1955 and also for the offences under Sections 16 (1) (a) (ii) and 7 (iii) of the P.F.A. Act, 1954 and Rule 50 (i) of the P.F.A. Rules, 1955, seeks anticipatory bail. 2. Consequent on the non-appearance of the petitioner in the above case, non-bailable warrants of arrest are pending against the petitioner. Anticipatory bail cannot be granted to nullify the process issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. There is no reason why the petitioner should not surrender before the Magistrate and seek regular bail. Accordingly, if the petitioner surrenders before the Magistrate and files an Bail Application No. 7585 of 2010 -:2:- application for regular bail within two weeks from today, the same shall be considered and disposed of preferably on the same day on which it is filed notwithstanding the pendency of non-bailable warrants of arrest against the petitioner and also after considering the explanation offered by the petitioner for his previous non-appearance. With the above observation this application is disposed of . Dated this the 19th day of November, 2010. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. ani/