IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2010 / 24TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 4127 of 2009() ------------------------------------------ C.R. NO.60/2009 OF PATHANAMTHITTA EXCISE RANGE. PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------- ROHINI, W/O.MOHANAN, KANNANKARA MALAYIL VEEDU, CHENNEERKKARA MURI, CHENNEERKARA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. EXCISE INSPECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA EXCISE RANGE. SRI. TEKCHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No.4127 of 2009 ---------------------------- Dated this the 14th 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 petitioner is the accused in CR No.60/2009 of Pathanamthitta Excise Range. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 55(i) of the Abkari Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 2/6/2009, the petitioner was found engaged in the sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor. The Excise party found the petitioner selling Indian Made Foreign Liquor to three persons. On seeing the Excise party, the three persons ran away. It was revealed that the petitioner purchased Indian Made Foreign Liquor from the outlet of the Beverage Corporation and it was being sold after adding water. The petitioner could not be arrested as no woman police constable was available. The petitioner apprehends arrest and therefore, she has filed this application B.A. No.4127 /2009 2 for anticipatory bail. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is involved in another abkari offence. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that all the relevant details were collected by the Excise officials on the spot itself and therefore, it is not necessary to arrest the petitioner. 6. In what manner the investigation should be conducted by the investigating agency cannot be dictated either by the accused or by the court. It is the prerogative of the investigating agency. The court can only ensure that the accused concerned should not be harassed by the investigating officer. There is no case that there was an attempt to harass or humiliate the petitioner. In the process of investigation, if necessary, the investigating officer can arrest the accused. 7. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that this is a fit case where the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be granted to the petitioner. If anticipatory bail is granted B.A. No.4127 /2009 3 to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm