IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2008 / 4TH BHADRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5228 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.18/2008 OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXCISE RANGE .................... PETITIONER : ACCUSED ------------------------------------ MINIMOL, D/O.PRABHAVATHY, 32 YEARS, TC.32/719, PUTHUVAL PUTHEN VEEDU, BALANAGAR COLONY, KADAKAMPALLY VILLAGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT ------------- STATE OF KERERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.5228 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of August, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 58 of Abkari Act. According to prosecution, on 17.3.2008, at about 11.45 a.m., accused was found in possession of 7.500 litres of coloured liquor. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. She has three minor children and they are dependent on her. Her mother had lodged complains before the Excise Officials and petitioner is not in terms with her mother since petitioner married a man on her choice from another community. This is the circumstance under which a false case is lodged against the petitioner, it is submitted. The article was purchased from Beverages Corporation and hence, offence under Section 58 will not be attracted, it is argued. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor BA No.5228/2008 2 submitted that the article was seized from the possession of the petitioner. Her name and details are mentioned in the mahazar. Five bottles each containing 1.5 litre of coloured liquor were seized from the possession of the petitioner and none of the bottles contained the sticker of Beverages Corporation. Those were all seized. The petitioner had no explanation for her possession. Therefore, the offence under Section 58 is clearly attracted, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I do not find that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, especially since the petitioner is not able to substantiate her innocence in the absence of any supporting materials placed before this Court. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl