IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6909 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 49/2008 OF KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED:A3:- ------------------------------------------- AMBILI @ AMBIKA , AGED 30 YEARS, D/O. BHAVANI, ALUMMOOTIL VEEDU, ATTUVASSERY MURI, KULAKKADA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 6909 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of November,2008 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under section 8(2) of the Abkari Act. According to prosecution, the Excise party found 70 litres of arrack being transported in an autorickshaw driven by 1st accused. Second accused was also present in the autorickshaw, but he ran away and escaped. First accused was arrested from the spot. On investigation, it was revealed that arrack was brought for the use of 3rd accused to his house. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there is nothing to connect petitioner with the crime. The 1st accused was arrested from a public road and not from the house of petitioner. It cannot be said that the article was brought for the use of 3rd respondent. She is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. 4. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner (A3) is involved in various other crimes of similar nature. As per the materials revealed in BA 6909/08 -2- the investigation, the contraband article was brought by accused 1 and 2 for the use of 3rd accused. Petitioner is required for interrogation and in a case of this nature, it is not proper to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the nature of allegations made and the nature of investigation, which is required, it is essential that the petitioner is interrogated in custody. If anticipatory bail is granted, such opportunity will be denied to the investigation. The materials which are in exclusive knowledge of petitioner have to be brought out by interrogation. Even otherwise unless the innocence of the accused is established and the court is satisfied that the accused will not repeat the offence, even regular bail cannot be granted. In the above circumstances, I am satisfied that it is not a fit case to invoke provision under section 438 Cr.P.C. 6. Crime was registered as early as on 24-6-2008 and petitioner was not available for arrest so far. The investigation is in a stand still. Petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer without any delay and co- operate with the investigation. Whether she BA 6909/08 -3- surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest her and proceed in accordance with law. With this direction, this petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.