IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2010 / 29TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3726 of 2010() ----------------------------- (C.R NO.52/2010 OF EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, KOLLAM) PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED 1&2 ------------------------------- 1. REMA DEVI, AGED 52 YEARS, W/O.BABU, AKSHAYA, NEERAVIL CHERI, TRIKKADAVOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 2. N.BABU, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.NEELAMBARAN, AKSHAYA, NEERAVIL CHERI, TRIKKADAVOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.D.AJITHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. ASSISTANT EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, KOLLAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J ----------------------- B.A No.3726 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of July 2010 ORDER This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 55(i) of Abkari Act. According to prosecution, on 10/06/2010, the excise party received information that foreign liquor is kept in the house of petitioners who are husband and wife. On reaching the house, 12 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor were seized from the bed room. It was revealed on investigation that it was kept for sale. First accused (wife) was present in the house, but, she was not arrested since woman police constables were not available. Second accused is the owner of the house and a case was registered against both of them. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioners are active workers of congress party. Second petitioner has won the election and defeated a candidate of the ruling party. First petitioner is also proposing to stand for an election. It is only due to political rivalry that a false case is foisted against petitioners, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the articles were seized from the bed room of the house of petitioners. Second petitioner is the owner of the house. First petitioner is his wife. The allegations made against petitioners B.A No.3726 OF 2010 2 are serious in nature. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that there is nothing on record to support the political rivalry alleged by petitioner. However, prosecution has no case that first accused was found dealing with the contraband article. Those were seized from the house occupied by first and second accused. But, first accused is the owner of the house and he may be in constructive possession of the house. In such circumstances, I find that first accused can be granted anticipatory bail, since she has an arguable case regarding possession of the article. 6. However, considering the serious nature of the allegations made against second accused who is liable for the constructive possession of contraband article, I find it is not fit to grant anticipatory bail to him. He has also not made out any ground to get anticipatory bail. Hence, the following order is passed. (1) Prayer for anticipatory bail by second accused is hereby rejected. (2) First accused shall, in the event of her arrest, be released on bail on her executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on the following condition: B.A No.3726 OF 2010 3 (i) Petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed and co-operate with investigation. (2) Anticipatory bail order passed in favour of first accused will be in force only for a period of 20 days from today. In the mean time, she shall seek regular bail from the court concerned. Petition is partly allowed. vdv K.HEMA, JUDGE