IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 8795 of 2011() ----------------------------- ST.2451/2008 of J.M.F.C., MUVATTUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ------------------------------- SURESH K.C.,S/O.CHANDRAN, AGED 39 MARUTHAMPADAM HOUSE, VEETTIKKALKADAVU, MANAGALAM DAM P.O.,PALAKKAD DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE S.I.OF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM 2. M/S.MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICE LTD.,REP.BYPOWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, VINOD VIJAYAN, MUVATTUPUZHA PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.K.RAJEEV THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A.No.8795 of 2011 --------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of November, 2011 O R D E R The petitioner apprehends arrest in execution of the non bailable warrant issued by the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Muvattupuzha, in S.T.No.2451 of 2008. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 138 of the Negotialble Instruments Act. It is stated that on summons, the petitioner appeared before court and he was exempted from appearing in the light of the decisions in Jain Babu vs. K.J.Joseph (2008(4) KHC 1). It is also stated that later when the case was posted for trial, the counsel for the petitioner reported no instructions and as the petitioner was not present before court, non bailable warrant was issued by the court. 2. In Vineeth Somarajan vs. State of Kerala (2009 (3) KLT 576), it was held that when warrant is issued against the accused, his remedy is to approach the court which issued the warrant for recalling the warrant and for granting bail; and not BA 8795/11 2 to move under Section 438 Crl.P.C. for anticipatory bail. If the petitioner surrenders before court and moves an application for bail and for recalling the warrant, the same would be considered by the court as indicated in Vineeth Somarajan vs. State of Kerala (2009(3) KLT 576). 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