IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2010 / 21ST ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2065 of 2010() ----------------------------------------- (CR.NO.110 OF 2009 OF KONNY EXCISE RANGE OF JFCM II, PATHANAMTHITTA) PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2: ------------------------------------------- ANITHA SUKU, AGED 34 YEARS, W/O. SUKU.K.V., PUTHENPURAYIL, MALAYALPPUZHA. KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANANMTHITTA. BY ADVS. SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR, SRI.V.V.RAJA. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V. TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/07/2010 ALONG WITH BA NO. 2982 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. HEMA, J ---------------------- B.A.No.2065 OF 2010 and B.A. No.2982 OF 2010 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of July, 2010 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, on 27.12.2009 at about 1.30 pm when the excise party came to the house of first accused, first accused was found carrying two litres of arrack and second accused was carrying 1.5 litres of arrack. Both of them ran away from the place of occurrence. Hence they could not be arrested. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that since first accused consumed liquor and started abusing people in the locality, somebody informed Excise officials and while Excise officials came to the spot, first accused, who is the husband of second accused, abused excise officials also. Hence a crime was registered against both the accused. Second accused had not done anything and appeared before the Assistant Excise Commissioner as directed by this court and she was questioned by him. B.A. No.2065 & 2982/10 2 4. Learned counsel for first accused argued that first accused is not the person who is referred to in the occurrence report. There is a difference in the address given in the said document and that of first accused. He is innocent of the allegations made, it is submitted. It is also submitted that first accused is a chronic liver patient and certificate is produced along with the petition filed by second accused, his wife. 5. Learned public prosecutor submitted that he has no objection in granting anticipatory bail to second accused. But as far as first accused is concerned, his petition is opposed. It is submitted that as per the case diary, first accused is involved in the offence. It is also submitted that petitioner's ration card reveals the same address as shown in the occurrence report and the copy of ration card is available in the case diary. 6. On hearing both sides, I find that first accused could not make out any ground for getting anticipatory bail. Hence, in a case of this nature, it is not ft to grant anticipatory bail. But, I am inclined to grant bail to second petitioner, in the light of the facts discussed above. Hence the following order is passed: 1) Second accused shall, in the event of arrest, be released on bail on her executing a bond for Rs.10,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like B.A. No.2065 & 2982/10 3 amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on the following conditions: i) She will report before the investigating officer as and when directed and co- operate with the investigation. ii) She will not get involved in any other offence of similar nature. 2) The anticipatory bail order passed in favour of second accused will be in force only for a period of 15 days from today and she shall seek regular bail from the court concerned within such period. 3) The prayer for anticipatory bail by first accused is rejected. He is at liberty to surrender before the investigating officer or Magistrate court concerned. If the first accused surrenders within 15 days, before the Magistrate Court and files bail application, it shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. Bail application No.2062/10 is allowed. Bail application No.2982/10 is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Sou.