IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 5893 of 2009()
1. SIDHIQUL AKBAR,S/O.AHAMMED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTE BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :25/02/2010
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
------------------------------------------------------
B.A. NO. 5893 OF 2009
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of February, 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.3 in
SC No.514 of 2008 of the Sessions Court, Thrissur.
2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section
3(1)(viii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the case was initiated on a complaint filed by the de facto
complainant before the Magistrate’s Court. The complaint was
forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the crime was registered.
It is pointed out that in the complaint, the name of the petitioner is
not shown as an accused. However, during investigation, his name
B.A. NO. 5893 OF 2009
:: 2 ::
was also added as accused by the investigating officer. During the
crime stage, the petitioner was granted bail. Thereafter, he went
abroad in search of a job. It is submitted that he did not receive any
summons issued by the Sessions Court. He came back to India in
September, 2009. At that time he realised that a non-bailable
warrant was pending against him. He apprehends arrest and,
therefore, he has filed this application for anticipatory bail.
4. In Vineeth Somarajan @ Ambady 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,
normally, the person against whom the warrant is issued has to
approach the Court which issued the warrant for re-calling the
warrant and for the grant of bail. He cannot, normally, straight away
approach the High Court by filing a Bail Application under 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 v. State of Kerala (2007(2) KLT 280).
B.A. NO. 5893 OF 2009
:: 3 ::
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.
(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/