IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5996 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.88/2008 OF KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION PETITIONER (S): ACCUSED:- -------------------- THANKAMONI, W/O.VIJAYAN, MUKULUVILA VADEKKETHIL VEEDU, VENDOOR PO., NEDUVATHOOR VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE EXCISE RANGE INSPECTOR, KOLLARAKKARA EXCISE RANGE KOLLAM, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 5996 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of November,2008 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. According to prosecution, on 31-8-2008 at about 3 a.m. a search was conducted to the petitioner's house. No contraband article was found. Therefore, the premises of the house were searched and from the north eastern corner, from a bush 170 litres of wash were seized. Petitioner's husband was present in the house but he was handicapped and on enquiry made, it was revealed that petitioner had kept the article and hence, crime was registered against her. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that this case has been falsely foisted against petitioner because of previous incident. On 25-4-1998, petitioner's husband was assaulted by some workers of C.P.I.(M) and his hand and leg were cut off. In respect of the said offence, there was a case. In the year 2006, two of the accused in that case were acquitted and other two accused were absconding. Petitioner was pressurized by the accused to settle the case and to give evidence in support of them. Since petitioner and her husband were not amenable to this, they were threatened stating that they will be implicated in a BA 5996/08 -2- non bailable offence. Learned counsel for petitioner also submitted that as per the mahazar, the article was seized from a forest and not from the house of petitioner. But petitioner was falsely implicated in the offence. It is clearly mentioned in the mahazar that the article was seized from the forest, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the Excise party who went for search was convinced that the article belonged to petitioner, on seizing the same from the bush which was situated on the north-eastern side of petitioner's house. It cannot be said that the article was seized from forest because a bush is also described as “kadu” (കട) . If seizure was from the forest, petitioner would not have been implicated in the offence, without being satisfied of the possession of the articles by petitioner. 5. As per the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner in the case in which de facto complainant's husband was attacked two accused were acquitted in the year 2006. If the case has ended in an acquittal, there is no possibility for pressurizing petitioner to give evidence in support of the accused in the year 2008. According to petitioner, two accused are BA 5996/08 -3- absconding but, present stage of that case is not known. Therefore, it may not be possible even to confirm whether there was any reason for pressurizing petitioner or her husband. The allegation of false implication is denied. It is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 6. On hearing both sides, considering the nature of the allegations made, I do not find that it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Though learned counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner was pressurized to give evidence in support of accused in the case, from the submission made itself it appears that two persons were already acquitted in 2006 itself. It is not quite clear to me whether there was any reason or cause for others to approach petitioner. The details of the case, the stage of case, nature of allegations made against the absconding accused, their role, etc. are not made available to this Court to appreciate the contention relating to false implication. However, it is left petitioner to establish the same during trial at the time of evidence. This petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.