High Court Kerala High Court

Muhammed Shafi Easkunju vs State Of Kerala on 8 April, 2010

Kerala High Court
Muhammed Shafi Easkunju vs State Of Kerala on 8 April, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 2243 of 2010()


1. MUHAMMED SHAFI EASKUNJU, S/O.
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY FOREST RANGE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.LIJU. M.P

                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. 2243 of 2010
                 ---------------------------------
              Dated this the 8th 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

apprehends arrest in execution of the non-bailable warrant

issued by the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First

Class-II (Forest Offence), Kollam, in C.C.No.532/2009.

2. It is stated that the petitioner is accused No.1 in

O.R. No.6/2002 of Anchal Forest Range, kollam. It is also

stated that the case was numbered as C.C.No.47/2005 on the

file of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II

(Forest Offence), Kollam. It is also submitted that the

petitioner came to know that accused No.5 in the case was

acquitted and accused Nos.3 and 4 were convicted. The case

against the petitioner was split up and re-filed as

C.C.No.532/2009. Non-bailable warrant was issued against

the petitioner. The petitioner apprehends arrest in execution

of the non-bailable warrant.

3. In Vineeth Somarajan @ Ambadi Vs. State of

B.A. No. 2243/ 2009
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