Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Pushpam vs State Of Kerala on 9 August, 2011

Author: K.T.Sankaran

Bench: K.T.Sankaran

       

  

  

 
 
       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

               PRESENT :

      THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

  TUESDAY, THE 9TH AUGUST 2011 / 18TH SRAVANA 1933

            Bail Appl..No. 6321 of 2011()
            -----------------------------
CRIME NO.64/2011 OF KATTAKADA EXCISE RANGE
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

 PETITIONER/ACCUSED :
---------------------

     PUSHPAM, ROADARIKATHU VEEDU,
     ANTHIYOORKONAM NEYYATTINKARA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

  BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SARIN


RESPONDENT:
---------------

     STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE
     PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
     ERNAKULAM.

     PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 09/08/2011,     THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:


                        K.T.SANKARAN, J.
              ---------------------------------------------
                  Bail Appln.No.6321 of 2011
              ----------------------------------------------
           Dated this the 09th day of August, 2011

                                ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.64 of 2011 of Kattakada Excise Range.

2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 8(1) and (2) of the Kerala Abkari Act.

3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in execution of the non-bailable warrant issued by the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kattakada and therefore he has filed this application for anticipatory bail.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that after completing the investigation, charge sheet was laid on 15/06/2011 before the court of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kattakada.

5. 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 Bail Appln.No.6321/2011 : 2 : 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).

6. In Sukumari v. State of Kerala (2001 (1) KLT 22) it was held that the power under Section 437 can be exercised even in cases where offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions.

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 skj