High Court Kerala High Court

Sajeer K. vs State Of Kerala on 10 December, 2009

Kerala High Court
Sajeer K. vs State Of Kerala on 10 December, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 7227 of 2009()


1. SAJEER K., AGED 28 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.MUHAMMED SALAHUDHEEN

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

 Dated :10/12/2009

 O R D E R
                       K.T. SANKARAN, J.
                    ---------------------------
                    B.A. No. 7227 of 2009
                ------------------------------------
          Dated this the 10th day of December, 2009

                            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.375/2001 on the file of the Court

of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class- III, Kozhikode.

2. The offence alleged against the accused is under

Section 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that charge

sheet was filed in the case on 28/4/2001. He submitted that

during the crime stage, the petitioner could not be arrested.

The presence of the petitioner could not be procured before

court as he was absconding. Now a non-bailable warrant is

issued against the petitioner and it is pending. The petitioner

apprehends arrest in execution of the non-bailable warrant.

Therefore, he has approached this Court under Section 438 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure.

4. In Vineeth Somarajan @ Ambadi Vs. State of Kerala

[2009(3)KHC 471], it was held that in cases where non-

B.A. No. 7227/2009
2

bailable warrant is issued by a court, the proper remedy of the

accused is to approach that court which issued the warrant and to

apply for recalling that warrant and for the grant of bail. It was

also observed in Vineeth Somarajan’s case that when such an

application for bail is filed, the same has to be considered in the

light of the principles laid down in Biju Vs. State of Kerala [2007

(2) K.L.T 280].

Reserving the right of the petitioner to move the learned

Magistrate for recalling the warrant and for the grant of bail, this

Bail Application is closed.

K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE

scm