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. 2306 of 2010() ----------------------------------- CRMP.4111/2009 of DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD CRIME NO. 49/2009 OF KUZHALMANNAM EXCISE RANGE .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED : ----------------------------- GIRIJA, D/O.LATE GOPALAN,CHEMBAPULLI, ERIAMAYUR, ALATHUR , PALAKKAD DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD) RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. K.S.SIVAKUMAR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 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. 2306 of 2010 ----------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of July, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 8(2) and 55(g) of the Abkari Act. According to prosecution, 45 litres of wash and 3 litres of arrack were seized from the compound of a house, in which, petitioner is residing along with her mother. The articles were kept by petitioner and hence she was implicated as an accused in this case. 3. According to learned counsel for petitioner, petitioner is not residing at the place of occurrence ie, the house situated in the property, from where the articles were seized. The articles do not belong to petitioner. She is not residing in the house situated in the said property. There is no evidence to show that petitioner possessed the articles. Learned counsel for petitioner also submitted that it is for the prosecution to establish the guilt and petitioner cannot be called upon to prove her innocence. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per records, petitioner is residing along with her mother in the house situated in the property, from where contraband articles were seized. The statement of the mother and other witnesses are also available in the case diary to show that petitioner had kept the article in B.A. No. 2306 / 2010 2 the place of occurrence. Considering the serious nature of the allegations made, anticipatory bail may not be granted, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that the allegations made against petitioner are serious in nature. As per the statements made by learned Public Prosecutor that there are sufficient materials to establish the guilt of petitioner. Petitioner is not able to state, why she is falsely implicated in the case. In cases in which bail application is opposed it has to be satisfied that petitioner is not guilty and that it is not likely for the accused to repeat the offence, to grant even regular bail. I am not satisfied of the twin conditions stated in Section 41 A of the Abkari Act, and hence, there is no ground to grant anticipatory bail. No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this court hereafter. This petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln