IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2009 / 26TH POUSHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7973 of 2008(F) ------------------------------------- CRMP.3676/2008 of I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM C.R.NO.116/2008 OF KOLLAM EXCISE RANGE .................... PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED : ---------------------------------- SULOCHANA, W/O.MANILAL, AGED 42 YERS, KAYAPPATTU THODY, THEKKAVILA, ERAVIPURAM, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI. K.SIJU RESPONDENT : ----------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY EXCISE RANGE INSPECTOR,KOLLAM EXCISE RANGE, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------ B.A. No.7973 OF 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of January, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 55(i) and 15(C) of Abkari Act. According to prospection, petitioner, who is the first accused was found selling liquor to the second accused and he was also found to consume the same. Second accused was arrested from the spot but, the first accused could not be arrested, since no woman police constable was available in the police party. 600 ml. of Indian Made Foreign Liquor were seized from the possession of petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. The article allegedly seized from the shop does not belong to petitioner or her husband. Under some mistaken impression, petitioner is implicated in the offence, it is submitted. 4. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there are witnesses who saw first accused selling the contraband article to the second accused B.A.No.7973 of 2008 2 and the latter was arrested from the spot. It is also submitted that in an offence of this nature, anticipatory bail may not be granted. On hearing both sides, I do not find any special circumstances or reasons for invoking provision under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Considering the serious nature of the allegations made, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The incident occurred on 22.11.2008 and petitioner is not available for investigation. Hence, petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer without any delay and co-operate with the investigation. Whether she surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest her and proceed in accordance with law. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac