IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2009 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6191 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.36/2009 OF THIRUPURAM EXCISE RANGE .................... PETITIONER : 1ST ACCUSED ------------------------------ RAJESWARI, D/O.KAMALAKSHY KALAVARATHALA VEEDU, ARANGAMUGHAL, ATHIYANNOOR DESOM, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.R.GOPAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. EXCISE INSPECTOR, THIRUPURAM EXCISE RANGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6191 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of October, 2009 ORDER This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.36 of 2009 of Thirupuram Excise Range. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 8(1) & (2) of the Abkari Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 10.9.2009, the petitioner was found in possession of 4 litres of arrack. She was arrested on the same date. The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody. 4. The Bail Application is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. He submitted that the petitioner is involved in 19 crimes of similar nature of which 3 crimes were committed in 2009. It is also pointed out that in respect of the incident on 20.5.2009, the petitioner was granted bail on 22.7.2009 as per the order in Bail Application No.3831 of 2009 and in respect of another abkari offence where the incident occurred on 3.6.2009, the petitioner was granted bail on 16.7.2009 as per the order in BA No.6191/2009 2 Bail Application No.3877 of 2009. 5. While disposing of Bail Application Nos.3831 of 2009 and 3877 of 2009, conditions were stipulated that the petitioner should not involve herself in any prejudicial activities or commit any offence of similar nature. Quite contrary to the conditions imposed while granting bail, the allegation is that the petitioner involved herself in an abkari offence on 10.9.2009, less than two months after her release in an abkari offence. This shows that the petitioner is not very much concerned about the conditions imposed by the court while granting bail. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage in spite of the fact that the petitioner is a woman. The Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl