IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2008 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 3537 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRMP.1140/2008 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), KOTTAYAM CRIME NO.11/2008 OF EXCISE RANGE OFFICER, ETTUMANOOR PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- SANTHA, EDACKALCHIRA HOUSE,KUMMANAM KARA, AYMANAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ THE STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, ETTUMANOOR, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 3537 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. According to prosecution, the Excise officials seized 20.700 litres of Indian made Foreign Liquor from the house of the petitioner. A case was registered against the petitioner under Section 55(a)and (i) of the Abkari Act. This petition is opposed. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is totally innocent of the allegations made. Petitioner is residing with the daughter ever since the demise of her husband for the past four months. She is not in occupation of the house and hence she cannot be implicated for possession of liquor in the house. The house is in a dilapidated condition and hence anybody could keep the article, it is submitted. 3. On hearing both sides, I find that the article being seized from the house of the petitioner, it is the duty of the petitioner to account for the possession of the article in her house. Except bare assertions that she was not available in the house, there is nothing to substantiate the plea of innocence. Of course, it was pointed out BA.3537/08 2 that the petitioner was not arrested from the spot, since allegedly, women police constables were not available. But in an offence of this nature, this circumstances alone may not be sufficient for invoking discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. This petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.