IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2008 / 30TH SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5156 of 2008() ----------------------------- CP.19/2008 of J.M.F.C.,KUNNAMKULAM CRIME NO.2/2005 OF ANTHIKKAD EXCISE RANGE .................... PETITIONER : 2ND ACCUSED ------------------- KARTHIYANI AGED 64 YEARS, W/O. SIVARAMAN NAIR POYILIL HOUSE, KAIPPARAMBU VILLAGE THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DT BY ADV. SRI.C.D.DILEEP RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM 2. EXCISE RANGE OFFICER ANTHIKKAD RANGE OFFICE, THRISSUR DISTRICT BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.5156 of 2008 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of August, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 55(g) and 64 of Kerala Abkari Act. According to prosecution, 1300 litres of wash was seized from the property belonging to the petitioner, who is the second accused. The article was found handled by the first accused. The first accused ran away and he could not be arrested. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. Petitioner is residing far away from the place from where the article was allegedly seized. She has no connection with the article seized. As per the allegations made by the prosecution itself, the article was seen handled by the first accused alone. Petitioner was not present at the scene. The prosecution has no case that the petitioner has anything to do with the article BA No.5156/08 2 except that she is the owner of the property from where the article is seized. It is also submitted that the petitioner did not even know that a case was registered against her, until a summons was issued from the Magistrate Court. 4. Learned public prosecutor at the very outset made it clear that the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner is only under Section 64A of the Abkari Act which is a bailable offence. Petitioner has not committed any offence under Section 55(g) of Abkari Act, according to the prosecution itself. She has not dealt with the contraband article in any manner and she was not in a physical possession by the same. She was made an accused in the case only on the allegation that she is the owner of the property from which the article was seized and she permitted the accused to use her land for manufacture, sale or storing of liquor etc. in contravention of the Act. Thereby, she is answerable only to a charge under Section 64A of Abkari Act, which is a bailable offence. It was also pointed out that it is because of this fact that the Magistrate Court issued only a summons to the petitioner. BA No.5156/08 3 5. After hearing both sides, I find that the petitioner is answerable only for an offence under Section 64A of Abkari Act, which is a bailable offence especially in the light of the submissions made by the learned public prosecutor. The Magistrate Court has issued only summons to petitioner and hence, the petitioner's apprehension that she will be arrested in connection with the offence under Section 55(g) is baseless. Having issued a summons, there is no question of having any apprehension that a person will be remanded to custody. 6. In such circumstances, since the petitioner is involved only in a bailable offence, (though non-bailable offence is alleged against the first accused) no anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. The apprehension that the petitioner will be arrested and detained on accusation of having committed a non bailable offence is not supported by materials. Petitioner may therefore surrender before the Magistrate Court and apply for bail, in which event, there is no reason why bail shall be refused to petitioner, especially in the light of the observations made in this order. At any rate, there is no reason for the petitioner to BA No.5156/08 4 believe that she may be arrested on accusation of having committed a non bailable offence and hence, Section 438 Crl.P.C. will not be attracted. With these observations, petition is disposed of. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl