RAJEEVAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the sole accused in a case involving offences under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC, which is pending before the Magistrate Court. He failed to appear in Court, in disobedience of summons issued from the Court, and hence non-bailable warrants were issued against him. Proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code ( the Code , for short) were also initiated against him, to proclaim him as an absconding accused, fie, therefore, apprehends arrest and hence, this application for anticipatory bail.

(2.) On hearing both sides and on a reading of Section 438 of the Code, and on consideration of the object of the said provision, I find that anticipatory bail cannot be granted to petitioner mainly for three reasons: (i) apprehension of arrest of petitioner is not on accusation of having committed any non bailable offence, since the offences involved are only bailable offences; (ii) the arrest sought for is consequent to lawful non-bailable warrant issued by a Court having jurisdiction since the accused failed to appear on receipt of summons issued by the Court; and (iii) discretionary relief under Section 438 is not intended to be extended in favour of a person who absconded and against whom, coercive steps are initiated by a Court, as per law, to secure his presence.

(3.) Section 438 of the Code reads as follows: