IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 24TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7548 of 2008(E) ------------------------------------------ (CR.NO.101/2008 OF CHENGANNUR EXCISE RANGE) ........... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------- PONNAMMA, D/O.K.UNNIKRISHNAN, CHANDRABHAVAN, OTHERA, ERAVIPEROOR. BY ADV. MR.T.P.PRADEEP. RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. AMJAD ALI. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/02/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------- B.A. No.7548 OF 2008 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 55(a), 55(i) and 13 read with 63 of the Abkari Act. According to prosecution, on 24.09.2008 at about 1.10 p.m., the Excise officials intercepted an auto rickshaw and petitioner (first accused) was found sitting in the auto rickshaw. 11.250 litres of foreign liquor was found inside the auto rickshaw, which was driven by second accused. He was arrested from the spot. Petitioner, being a woman, was not arrested, since no woman police constable was available. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the offence involved is only under Section 63 of Abkari Act, in the light of the decision cited in Sabu Vs. State of Kerala (2003(2) KLT 173), even if the allegations are accepted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that all the contentions were considered by this court as per order dated 20.11.2008 in B.A.No.6719 of 2008 and this court had come to B.A.No.7548 of 2008 2 a finding that it is premature to conclude that the offence committed is under Section 63 and not under Section 55(i) or 55(a) of Abkari Act. According to prosecution, the offence involved is under Section 55(i) of Abkari Act. That apart petitioner's conduct was also taken into account by this court in giving wrong details to the police to mislead them and hence, this court had dismissed the anticipatory bail application. There was also a direction to surrender before the Magistrate court concerned or before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation. But, in spite of expiry of more than 2 months, petitioner has not complied with the direction. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. On hearing both sides and on going through the earlier order passed in the anticipatory bail application filed by petitioner, I am satisfied that there is no ground to review my order. I have considered all the contentions raised and found that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner has also not complied with the direction issued in the earlier order. The incident happened as early as on 24.09.2008 and B.A.No.7548 of 2008 3 petitioner could not be arrested so far. Hence, the following order is passed : i) Petitioner shall 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. ii) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this court. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac