IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 6131 of 2009()
1. HAMEED, S/O.AHAMMED KUTTY HAJI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.DEVIDAS.U.K
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :21/10/2009
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
------------------------------------------------------
B.A. NO. 6131 OF 2009
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of October, 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 the accused in
C.C. No.927 of 2003, on the file of the Court of the Judicial
Magistrate of the First Class – II, Perinthalmanna (L.P.No.52 of
2009).
2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under
Sections 465, 468 and 419 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12
(1)(b) of the Passport Act.
3. It is submitted that the petitioner filed Annexure C petition
stating that he had entrusted the counsel to cross examine the
witnesses and to represent the petitioner at all relevant times before
Court and to exempt the petitioner from personal appearance. It is
submitted that that application was dismissed. It is submitted by the
B.A. NO. 6131 OF 2009
:: 2 ::
counsel that even before Annexure C petition was filed, evidence in
the case was over. However, the petitioner did not appear on the
date fixed for questioning under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. It is submitted that non-bailable warrant was issued
against him. The petitioner apprehends arrest in execution of the
non-bailable warrant and, therefore, he has filed this application for
anticipatory bail.
4. In Vineeth Somarajan v. State of Kerala (2009 (3) KHC
471), it was held that where non-bailable warrant is issued by the
court on account of non-appearance of the accused, the remedy of
the accused is to file an application for withdrawal of the warrant and
for the grant of bail. 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 taking into account the principles laid
down in Biju v. State of Kerala (2007(2) KLT 280).
Reserving the right of the petitioner to apply before the
Sessions Court for withdrawal of the warrant and for the grant of bail,
this Bail Application is closed. If such applications for withdrawal of
the warrant and for grant of bail are filed, those applications shall be
B.A. NO. 6131 OF 2009
:: 3 ::
disposed of by the learned Sessions Judge in the light of the
aforesaid decisions.
(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/