IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2009 / 17TH ASHADHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3573 of 2009() ------------------------------------- C.R. NO.20/2009 OF BALUSSERY EXISE RANGE PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- PENNUKUTTI, AGED 50 YEARS, D/O.KANNAN, VALIYAPOYIL, KOTTOOR AMSOM, MOOLAD, KOILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PREVENTIVE OFFICER, BALUSSERY EXCISE RANGE, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. TEKCHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No.3573 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of July, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.20/2009 of Balusseri Excise Range. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 8(1) and (2) of the Abkari Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 9/06/2009, the petitioner was found transporting 2.5 litres of arrack. Excise Party seized the arrack. Since there was no lady constable available in the Excise party, the petitioner could not be arrested. Mahzar was prepared, which was witnessed by independent witnesses. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case was foisted against the petitioner due to enmity. It is stated that the Excise Officials enquired with the petitioner about one Chandran. The petitioner stated that she B.A. No.3573/2009 Page numbers did not know Chandran. There was a quarrel between the Excise party and the petitioner, which resulted in the registration of a false case against the petitioner, according to the petitioner. 5. Going by the Case Diary and the records, I do not think that the contention of the petitioner that no case is made against her, is correct. This is not a fit case where discretionary relief under Section 438 can be granted to the petitioner. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm