IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2010 / 24TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5776 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.88/09 OF KARTHIKAPPALLY EXCISE RANGE PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- THANKAMONY, AGED 42 YEARS, W/O. LATE CHANDRA BHANU, SMITHA BHAVANAM, VALIYAKUZHY MURI, CHEPPAD VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR SMT.A.SALINI LAL RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REP. BY EXCISE INSPECTOR, KARTHIKAPPALLY RANGE. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.5776 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of January, 2010 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.88 of 2009 of Karthikappally Excise Range, Alappuzha District. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 8(1) & (2) of the Abkari Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 29.9.2008, on getting reliable information that the petitioner was engaged in the sale of arrack at her residence, the excise party went to the house of the petitioner. On search, a quantity of 1.5 litres of coloured arrack was seized. The petitioner was not arrested since no woman police constable was available. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the son of the petitioner, who is employed in CRPF, had brought Indian made foreign liquor and it was kept in the house. It is also submitted that the IMFL was purchased from the outlet of the Beverages Corporation. BA No.5776/2009 2 5. In this application for anticipatory bail, it is not necessary to decide the contention put forward by the prosecution as well as the accused on the merits. That is a matter to be decided at the time of trial. 6. Prima facie, there are materials to indicate that the petitioner is involved in the offence. In such a case, I do not think that anticipatory bail can be granted. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl