High Court Kerala High Court

Jayakumar T.B vs Fathima Usman on 9 November, 2009

Kerala High Court
Jayakumar T.B vs Fathima Usman on 9 November, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 6406 of 2009()


1. JAYAKUMAR T.B.,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. FATHIMA USMAN, W/O.USMAN,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.I.DANIEL

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

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

 Dated :09/11/2009

 O R D E R
                       K.T.SANKARAN, J.
                 ---------------------------------------------
                        B.A.No.6406 of 2009
                 ---------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 9th day of November, 2009



                              ORDER

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.2559 of 2004 which is now pending as

L.P.No.83 of 2009 on the file of the court of the Judicial

Magistrate of the First Class-I, Ernakulam.

2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. The petitioner states that he did not receive summons

in C.C.No.2559 of 2004. It is stated that he went to Qatar in

2004 and he came back to India only on 23.10.2009. It is stated

that a non bailable warrant is pending against him in L.P.No.83

of 2009.

4. In Vineeth Somarajan @ Ambadi vs. 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, normally, the person against whom the warrant is

BA No.6406/2009 2

issued has to approach the court which issued the warrant for

recalling 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).

Reserving the right of the petitioner to move the court

which issued the non-bailable warrant to recall the warrant and

to grant bail, this Bail Application is closed. If an application is

filed before the court, the court shall dispose of the same in the

light of the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions.

K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE
csl