IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2008 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6442 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.35/08 OF ALATHUR EXCISE RANGE .................... PETITIONER (S): ACCUSED NO.2: --------------------------------- RUGMINI AMMA, AGED 60 YEARS, W/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, MALLAMKUNNAM, NECHUOOR, TARUR, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6442 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of October, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 8(2) of Abkari Act. According to prosecution, petitioner (second accused) was the owner of the house from where 25 litres of arrack were seized. The article was in possession of the first accused, who is her son. On search, the article was seized from the house. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the incident occurred on 2.9.2008 at about 10 p.m. As per the mahazar, on getting reliable information that the first accused was possessing illicit arrack, the Excise Officials came to the house of the petitioner and a person was found standing in front of the house, but, he ran away on seeing the Excise Officials. Petitioner was present in the house and on questioning her, she was informed that it was her son who ran away. On search, 25 litres of arrack were seized from the house. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the BA No.6442/08 2 offence under Section 8(2) of Abkari Act will not be attracted as against petitioner because there is no case and she was found dealing with article. As per the prosecution case itself, the first accused was in possession of arrack and petitioner was only in constructive possession of the article. The information received itself was that first accused was in possession of the article. The offence committed by petitioner would fall only under Section 64(A) of Abkari Act which provides that any owner of a building permits any person to use the building for manufacture sale or storing for sale of liquor etc. in contravention of the Act, he shall be punishable with fine which shall not less than Rs.25,000/- unless he proves to the satisfaction of the court that all due and reasonable precautions were taken by him to prevent such use. The said offence is bailable one and petitioner can be said to have committed only such offence, even if the entire case is accepted. If, petitioner, who is the mother of first accused is remanded to custody on these allegations, she will suffer irreparable loss and injury and hence, she may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. BA No.6442/08 3 On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail on conditions. Hence, the following order is passed: Petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned within seven days from today and she shall be released on bail on her executing bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate on condition that she will report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed and she shall not commit any offence while on bail. The petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl BA No.6442/08 4