IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2010 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2130 of 2010 CRIME NO.38 OF 2004 OF ADHUR POLICE STATION NOW PENDING AS C.C.NO.8 OF 2009 OF JFCM I, KASARAGOD. PETITIONER : ACCUSED NO.2: ------------------------------ MOHAMMED KUNHI AGED 29 YEARS AI, S/O.T.M.ABDULLA NR.DURGA PARAMESHARI TEMPLE, MEEPUSURI RAMADAS NAGAR POST, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ADHUR POLICE STATION, REP BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 2130 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of April, 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.2 in C.C.No.8 of 2009, on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class I, Kasaragod. 2. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 419, 465, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act. 3. It is submitted that, after completing investigation, charge sheet was filed in the case. It is also submitted that the case was taken on file as C.C.No.8 of 2009, on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class I, Kasaragod. Non-bailable warrant was issued by the Court for the arrest of the petitioner. The petitioner apprehends arrest in execution of the non-bailable warrant. Therefore, he has filed this application for anticipatory bail. B.A. NO.2130 OF 2010 :: 2 :: 4. In Vineeth Somarajan @ Ambadi v. State of Kerala (2009 (3) KHC 471), it was held that 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 by filing a Bail Application under 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 v. 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 ahz/