High Court Kerala High Court

Gireesh vs State Of Kerala Represented By on 8 April, 2010

Kerala High Court
Gireesh vs State Of Kerala Represented By on 8 April, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 2257 of 2010()


1. GIREESH, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B.

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

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

 Dated :08/04/2010

 O R D E R
                      K.T. SANKARAN, J.
                   ---------------------------
                    B.A. No.2257 of 2010
               ------------------------------------
              Dated this the 8th day of April, 2010

                           O R D E R

It is stated that the petitioner is accused No.7 in

S.C.No.547/2006 on the file of the court of the Additional

District and Sessions (Ad-Hoc) Court-I, Pathanamthitta. The

case arose out of Crime No.550/2003 of Thiruvalla Police

Station, registered for the offences under Sections 143, 147,

148, 149, 506(ii), 324 and 308 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. It is stated that during the crime stage as well as

the committal proceedings, the petitioner was on bail. The

petitioner states that he was not served with any summons

issued by the Sessions Court. However, non-bailable warrant

was issued for the arrest of the petitioner. It is also stated

that proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure were also initiated. The petitioner

apprehends arrest in execution of the non-bailable warrant.

Therefore, he has filed this application for anticipatory bail

under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. In Vineeth Somarajan @ Ambadi Vs. State of

B.A. No.2257/ 2010
2

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 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 court

which issued the non bailable warrant, for recalling the warrant

and for the grant of bail, this Bail Application is closed.

K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE

scm