IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2010 / 1ST MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5760 of 2009() --------------------------------------- CRIME NO.82/2007 OF KAYAMKULAM EXCISE RANGE. ........... PETITIONER(S): IST ACCUSED -------------------- RAJI, UDAYAPURAM, KANDALLOOR SOUTH KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. MR.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) MR.A.R.DILEEP SMT.SURYA SASI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. EXCISE INSPECTOR, KAYAMKULAM RANGE KAYAMKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 5760 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 21st day of January, 2010 O R D E R When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 11/01/2010, the following order was passed: “ This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.1 in C.R.No.82 of 2007 of Kayamkulam Excise Range. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 6.7.2007, 300 litres of wash and the utensils and implements for distillation of arrack were seized from the house of the accused. The first accused is the wife of the second accused. It is stated that the second accused could not be arrested as he ran away. The first accused was not arrested as no woman police constable was available. 4. The second accused was later arrested and he was released on bail. It is submitted that the accused persons are not involved in other cases of similar nature. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the first accused had given birth to a child on 1.6.2009 and if she is B.A. No. 5760 /2009 2 arrested and detained, she would be put to great hardship. It is also submitted that there is no material to indicate that the first accused is involved in the offence. 5. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the view that before disposing of the Bail Application, an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer at 9 A.M. on 14.1.2010 and 15.1.2010. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the order before the investigating officer. Post on 21.1.2010. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be arrested until further orders in connection with C.R.No.82 of 2007 of Kayamkulam Excise Range. ” 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner has complied with the direction contained in the order dated 11/01/2010. 3. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the B.A. No. 5760 /2009 3 case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release her on bail on her executing bond for Rs.15,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: A) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; B) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. C) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail. D) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm