IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN SATURDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2011 / 29TH SRAVANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6644 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.88/2011 OF KARTHIKAPALLY EXCISE RANGE PETITIONERS (S): ACCUSED 1 AND 2 ----------------------------------- 1. SOBHANA, W/O. UTHAMAN, KALLUNKUM MOOTTIL, PUTHYAVILA, KANDALLOOR. 2. UTHAMAN, S/O. PADMANABHAN, KALLUNKUM MOOTTIL, PUTHIYAVILA, KANDALLOOR. BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) SRI.P.S.SIDHAN SRI.V.K.RAJANANDAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. EXCISE INSPECTOR, KARTHIKAPALLY EXCISE RANGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A.No.6644 of 2011 --------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of August, 2011 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 and 2 in Crime No.88 of 2011 of Karthikappally Excise Range, Alappuzha District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 55(a) & (i) of the Abkari Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 25.7.2011, the accused were found engaged in the sale of illicit liquor. A quantity of 700 ml. of illicit liquor was seized from the possession of the petitioners. It is stated by the learned Public Prosecutor that accused No.1, who is the wife of accused No.2, could not be arrested as no woman police constable was available. Accused No.2 ran away from the place and therefore, he could not be arrested. BA 6644/2011 2 4. The allegations levelled against the petitioners are serious in nature. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioners are entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The matter requires investigation. Custodial interrogation of the petitioners may be required in the case. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, it would adversely affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl