IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2008 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 3332 of 2008() ----------------------------- (C.R.NO.40 OF 2007 OF HUSDURG EXCISE RANGE) PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- K.SAROJINI, AGED 56 YEARS, W/O.BABU, NALAMVATHUKAL COLONY, UDUMA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.HARISH RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT AND STATE ---------------------------------- 1. STATE, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE EXCISE RANGE OFFICER, (C.R.NO.40 OF 2007 OF HOSDURG EXCISE RANGE), KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 3332 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of May, 2008 O R D E R Application is for anticipatory bail. 2. According to the prosecution, on 27-6-2007 at 4.15 p.m. the petitioner was found in transit 30 packets of Karnataka arrack containing 100 ml. each. The petitioner could not be arrested. A crime was registered against the petitioner under section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this is a falsely foisted case. The petitioner is totally innocent of the allegations made. Since the petitioner is involved in another case under the Abkari Act, the police has falsely implicated her in this case also as the actual accused could not be arrested. He pointed out that the incident occurred on 27-6-2007 and though the petitioner was allegedly caught red-handed, the F.I.R. was registered only on 28-6-2007 and there is no explanation for the delay in registering the F.I.R. It is also pointed out that the petitioner was not arrested on the ground that woman police was not available. It is also BA 3332/08 -2- argued that the petitioner was very much available for arrest, if the respondent wanted to arrest, since she was appearing regularly in S.C. No.463/2006 as an accused. Therefore, the case set up by the prosecution that the petitioner is absconding is totally false. However, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation and that charge sheet could not be filed so far and hence a direction may be given to her to present before the Investigating Officer. 4. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that there is no plausible explanation for the non-arrest of the petitioner. The delay in registering the F.I.R. in the name of the petitioner is also to be noted. In the above circumstances, the following orders can be passed:- 1. Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on 2-6-2008 between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. and make herself available for interrogation. Thereafter, she shall be produced before the learned Magistrate concerned, who will release the petitioner on bail on her executing a bond for Rs.20,000/- with solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate. BA 3332/08 -3- 2.The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed by him. The application is allowed as above. K. HEMA, JUDGE. mn.