IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 8TH ASWINA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 5951 of 2010() --------------------------------------- CRIME. NO.110/2009 OF ETTUMANOOR POLCIE STATION, KOTTAYAM DIST. ............. PETITIONER/5TH ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ P.K.VENKATESH @ SAKTIVEL, S/O.KRISHNASWAMY, D.R./29, DOCTOR RAJENDRA PRASAD STREET, BHAVANI ROAD, PERUTHURA, ERODE DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ETTUMANNOOR POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.S.HRITHWIK THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss V.RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Bail Application No.5951 of 2010 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 30.09.2010 ORDER Petitioner, who is the 5th accused in Crime No.110 of 2009 of Ettumanoor Police Station and now pending before the J.F.C.M-I, Ettumanoor as C.C.No.465/2009 for an offence punishable under Section 411 IPC, seeks anticipatory bail. 2. Petitioner who hails from Tamil Nadu was initially granted bail by the court below on 10.11.2009. Subsequently on discovering that the tax receipt produced by one of the sureties was a forged one a case was registered against the petitioner as Crime No.68/2009. In that case the petitioner was released on bail. For the reason that the petitioner was absent on 2.8.2010 when the case stood posted for framing charge, the court below cancelled the bail bond of the petitioner and the other accused persons who were also absent. This Court had directed the Magistrate to consider the application for regular bail in the case of the other accused persons as per the order passed in B.A.No.5724/2010. I see no reason why the petitioner should not also be treated similarly. B.A.No.5951 of 2010 2 Since 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 court below and files an application for regular bail within two weeks from today, the same shall be considered and disposed of, preferably, on the same date on which it is filed notwithstanding the pendency of non-bailable warrants of arrest against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the event of the petitioner being released on bail, he may be permitted to make cash deposit instead of furnishing sureties since there is a chance of forged receipts being produced by the sureties. Hence in the event of learned Magistrate enlarging the petitioner on bail, instead of insisting on sureties, the learned Magistrate may direct the petitioner to make cash deposit which the petitioner volunteers to make. This Bail Application is, accordingly, disposed of. V. RAMKUMAR,(JUDGE) sj