IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2010 / 28TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 7625 of 2009() ----------------------------- O.R NO. 154/2009 OF ADOOR EXCISE RANGE, PATHANAMTHITTA. PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3: -------------------------------------------------- 1. BINDHU D/O.LALITHA, AGED 23 YEARS, BIJUBHAVANAM, PARAKOOTTOM MURI, PALLIKKAL VILLAGE,ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. LALITHA, W/O.SUKUMARAN, AGED 45 YEARS, BIJUBHAVANAM, PARAKOOTTOM MURI, PALLIKKAL VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 3. GEORGEKUTTY, S/O.KUTTY, AGED 36 YEARS, CHARUVILA VADAKETHIL HOUSE, THUVAYUR NORTH WARD, EARATH VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVY RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. TEKCHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 7625 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of January, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in O.R.No.154/2009 of Adoor Excise Range. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 8(1)(2) of the Abkari Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 8/12/2009, the accused persons were found in possession of 9.45 litres of arrack at their residence. Since, no woman police constable was available, accused Nos. 1 and 2 could not be arrested. Accused No. 4 was arrested on the spot. Accused No.3 ran away and therefore, he could not be arrested. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first petitioner was arrested after filing the Bail Application. Therefore, the Bail Application is not pressed in so far as it relates to the first petitioner. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that accused No.2 is involved in three other abkari offences and accused No.3 B.A. No. 7625/2009 2 is involved in another abkari offence. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. I am of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm