IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2010 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 1592 of 2010() ----------------------------- CP.28/2008 of J.M.F.C.,CHANGANACHERRY .................... PETITIONER (S): ACCUSED NO.1 --------------------------------------------- PRADEEP AGED 32 YEARS S/O.BHARATHAN MEKHA NIVAS, AMARA P.O. THRIKKODITHANAM CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY SRI.GOKUL DAS V.V.H. SRI.GOKUL DAS V.V.H. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.1592 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of March, 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.1 in Crime No.485 of 2001 of Changanacherry Police Station. The offence alleged against him is stated to be under Section 55 (a) & (i) of the Abkari Act. It is stated that the petitioner was granted bail during the crime stage. After filing the charge sheet, summons was issued to the petitioner. It is stated in the Bail Application that he received the summons. However, he did not appear before court. The reason for non appearance is stated as follows: “It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner was out of State for pursuing his employment. Due to the above reason, he was not able to be present before the court below.” 2. Now the case is pending as C.P.No.28 of 2008 on the file of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Changanacherry. It is stated that non bailable warrant was issued by the court for the arrest of the petitioner. The petitioner BA No.1592/ 2010 2 apprehends arrest in execution of the non bailable warrant and therefore, he has filed this application for anticipatory bail. 3. In Vineeth Somarajan @ Ambady vs. State of Kerala (2009(3) KHC 471), it was held that in cases where non bailable warrant is issued by the court, 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. He cannot, normally, straight away approach the High Court invoking Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was also noticed in that decision that when such an application for bail is filed, the learned Magistrate has to dispose of the Bail Application in the light of the principles laid down in Biju vs. State of Kerala (2007(2) KLT 280). 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. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl