IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2011 / 20TH SRAVANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6316 of 2011() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.44 OF 2011 OF PATHANAMTHITTA EXCISE RANGE) PETITIONER/ ACCUSED --------------------------- SHEEBA SAGAR,AGED 49 YEARS,W/O.VIDHYA SAGAR,MUNDUMANNIL HOUSE,KANAMUKKU, NARANGANAM VILALGE,KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR SRI.V.V.RAJA RESPONDENT(S): STATE -------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P.SRI.V.MANU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------- B.A. No.6316 OF 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of August, 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.44 of 2011 of the Pathanamthitta Excise Range. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 55(a)(i) of the Abkari Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 8.7.2011, the petitioner was found engaged in the sale of Indian made foreign liquor in her house. A quantity of 1.435 litres of Indian made foreign liquor was seized from the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner could not be arrested as no woman police constable was available. B.A. No.6316 OF 2011 2 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has undergone two surgeries. On a query, it was submitted that though the surgery was for removal of uterus, because of certain complication she had to undergo surgery twice. 5. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The matter requires investigation. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case. However, the contentions put forward by the petitioner would be relevant at the time of considering the application for regular bail, which will be taken note of by the Court. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms