IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 2148 of 2010()
1. SREELAL, AGED 33 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.NIREESH MATHEW
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :07/04/2010
O R D E R
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
---------------------------
B.A. No. 2148 of 2010
------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th 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.22 in Crime No.205/2005 of Pazhayannur Police Station,
Thrissur District, which is now pending as C.P. No. 75/2009 on
the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,
Wadakkanchery. The petitioner apprehends arrest in execution of
the non bailable warrant issued by the Court. Therefore, he has
field this application for anticipatory bail.
2. The occurrence was in 2005. The petitioner was arrested
during the crime stage. It is stated that all the disputes and
differences between the petitioners and others on the one
hand and SDF Industries Limited on the other, were
settled. Annexure A order shows that in C.C. No.538/2007,
another case, the offence was compounded. Annexure B shows
that the petitioner was accused No.3 in C.C. No. 434/2007 on
the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,
Wadakkanchery and the proceedings in that case were quashed
on the ground that the matter was settled between the parties.
B.A. No. 2148 / 2010 2
Annexure C shows that the Board of Directors of the company
decided to settle the criminal cases or to withdraw or compound
the same.
3. These are all matters which the petitioner would be able
to submit before the learned Magistrate, before whom the
petitioner has to surrender.
4. In Vineeth Somarajan @ Ambadi Vs. State of Kerala
[2009 (3) KHC 471] it was held that in cases where non 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 the 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].
The petitioner will be free to raise all the aforesaid
contentions before the learned Magistrate for consideration at
the time of considering the request for bail.
The Bail Application is disposed of as above.
K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE
ln