IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2008 / 19TH ASHADHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4399 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.139 OF 2007 OF KAYAMKULAM EXCISE RANGE PETITIONER/ACCUSED:- ------------------------------------- SUBHADRA, AGED 30, W/O RADHAKRISHNAN, RAHUL BHAVANAM, MUTHUKULAM SOUTHMURI, MUTHUKULAM VILLAGE,KARTHIKAPALLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHANAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERAL, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 4399 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th July, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Section 8(1) and (2) of the Abkari Act. According to prosecution, on 13.11.2007 at about 1.30 PM, the Excise officials found a lady, carrying a plastic bag and on suspicion, she was apprehended and on examination, it was found to contain a can containing 10 litres of arrack. A case was registered under Section 8(1) and (2) of the Abkari Act. The articles were seized. But the petitioner could not be arrested, since woman police were not available at the time and the place was a remote area. 3. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that this offence was detected as early as on 13.11.2007 and the petitioner's full details were shown in the occurrence report itself. But the petitioner was not available for arrest for the past so many months. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the innocence of the petitioner will be revealed from the following three BA.4399/08 2 facts; (1) she is a woman; (2) it is highly improbable that a woman will be able to carry a can containing 10 litres of arrack by herself; and (3) the arrest of a woman can be effected by taking assistance of another woman and it is not necessary to insist for woman police. 5. I am not satisfied that on the grounds stated by learned counsel for petitioner to establish the innocence of the petitioner. It cannot be inferred from the above facts alone that the petitioner is not guilty and hence, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. This petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.