IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2010 / 23TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 7827 of 2009() ------------------------------------------- (CR.NO.37/2009 OF KUMBLA EXCISE RANGE, KASARAGODE DISTRICT) PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ GEETHA,AGED 30 YEARS,D/O.GANGADHARA, MANHILATHU HOUSE,HERROR P.O,MAGALPADY, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. MR.P.K.ANIL RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, KUMBALA EXCISE RANGE. 2. STATE REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 7827 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of January, 2010 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 C.R. No. 37/2009 of Kumbla Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 18.12.2009, the petitioner was found transporting 8 litres of arrack. She could not be arrested, as no women constable was available. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted the following: 1. The petitioner is not involved in the offence and this is a case of mistaken identity. 2. The case was foisted against her due to political rivalry. It is stated that the petitioner is a member of a Kudamba sree unit of Uppala village. she made some allegations against the B.A. No. 7827 of 2009 2 president. The president is having connections with the members of the ruling political party. The petitioner is implicated in the case to wreak vengeance on her. 3. The petitioner is in the advanced stage of pregnancy and she is suffering from various ailments. 4. There are no materials to connect the petitioner with the offence. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have perused the Case Diary file also. 6. The records available would indicate that the signatures of the petitioner was taken on the label affixed on the sample taken as well as on the label affixed on the thondi articles. Prima facie, it cannot be contented that there is a mistake regarding identity of the accused. 7. Another contention is that the case is a foisted one at the instance of the President of the Kudamba-sree unit. While considering the application for anticipatory bail, that contention B.A. No. 7827 of 2009 3 cannot be decided. Evidence is required and only after analysing the evidence, a finding could be arrived at on that point. 8. The contention that the petitioner is in the advanced stage of pregnancy is a matter to be considered after arrest. The proviso to section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides sufficient safeguard in that regard. No material is produced to show that the petitioner cannot withstand the arrest and detention. 9. The contention that there is no material to connect the petitioner with the offence, prima facie, cannot be accepted, on the basis of the materials on record. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that detention of a pregnant women would be in violation of human rights. I am not deciding that question in this application for Anticipatory Bail. That question arises only on arrest and only when an order for judicial custody is to be passed. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln