IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2008 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 3567 of 2008(B) ------------------------------ (CRIME NO.20/2008 OF EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM PETITIONER : ACCUSED: ------------------------- BABY, AGED 44 YEARS, D/O.PONNAMMA, MAMMOOTTIL VEEDU, AMBALAKKUNNU, KALLUVILAKONAM, KARUMAM P.O., TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------- B.A.No.3567 of 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of June, 2008 ORDER This petition filed for anticipatory bail. 2. According to the prosecution on 8.4.2008, at about 12.30 p.m., petitioner was found carrying 4.5 litres of Indian made Foreign liquor. The petitioner was intercepted and articles were seized. But, she could not be arrested for want of women constables. The offence alleged is under Section 58 of the Abkari Act. The petitioner apprehends arrest and detention and hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted the allegations made as per the available records will not constitute offence under Section 58. Applying the dictum laid down in Sabu vs. State of Kerala (2003(2) KLT 173) there is only a bailable offence in this case. The mere possession of Indian made Foreign liquor is not sufficient to make out an offence under Section 58 of Abkari Act. But the Section having been quoted wrongly as Section 58 of Abkari Act, it will be difficult to get bail from lower court. Hence, petitioner seeks anticipatory bail, failing which he will suffer great hardship. BA NO.3567/08 2 4. The learned public prosecutor submitted that the crime is under investigation. According to him, the purpose for which the article is carried has to be found out. On hearing both sides, especially in the light of the dictum laid down in Sabu vs. State of Kerala (2003(2) KLT 173), I find that anticipatory bail can be granted on conditions. 5. Hence, the following order is passed: (i) The respondent is directed to release the petitioner in the event of her arrest on her executing bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court below, if the petitioner surrenders and files bail application. (ii) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating officer on every Monday and Thursday between 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. (iii) If the petitioner is involved in any offence of similar nature, the bail is liable to be cancelled. The petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl