IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 7542 of 2009()
1. SIJI, S/O. JOSEPH, AGED 27 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :22/12/2009
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
B.A.No.7542 of 2009
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2009
ORDER
This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section
438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is
accused No.3 in Sessions Case No.502 of 2007 on the file of the
court of the Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court No.III),
Palakkad District.
2. The offence alleged against the accused is under
Section 307 read with Section 176 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that going by the charge sheet, the allegation levelled
against accused Nos.2 to 5 is that they committed the offence
under Section 176 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. It is stated that the petitioner was arrested and he
was released on bail during the stage of investigation. During
committal proceedings also, the petitioner states, he appeared
before court. After committal, the case was numbered as
S.C.No.502 of 2007 on the file of the court of the Additional
BA No.7542/2009 2
Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.III), Palakkad. The
petitioner was released on bail by the Additional Sessions Court.
It is stated that later the petitioner went abroad on 25.3.2007.
The bail bonds were cancelled and non bailable warrant was
issued against the petitioner, since the petitioner failed to
appear before court. The petitioner apprehends arrest in
execution of the non bailable warrant. Therefore, he has filed
the application for anticipatory bail.
5. 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 on account of non
appearance of the accused, 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).
BA No.7542/2009 3
Reserving the right of the petitioner to move the court
which issued the warrant to recall the warrant and to grant bail,
this Bail Application is closed.
K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE
csl