IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 26TH OCTOBER 2009 / 4TH KARTHIKA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5996 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.24/2009 OF EXCISE RANGE OF KUMBLA, KASARAGOD PETITIONER/ACCUSED : -------------------------------------- VINODHA,AGED 45 YEARS, W/O.CHANDRASEKHARA, R/AT SANTHIGIRI HOUSE, MANGALPADY P.O. MANGALPADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA,T HROUGH EXCISE INSPECTOR KUMBLA RANGE,REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. M.S. BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 5996 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of October, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.24/2009 of Kumbla Excise Range, Kasaragod. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 25/9/2009, the Excise Party saw the petitioner in possession of 30 bottles of Indian made foreign liquor, each bottle containing 180ml, kept for sale. It is alleged that the bottles containing Indian made foreign liquor were intended for sale in Karnataka State alone. 4. The petitioner could not be arrested as no woman police constable was available. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no material to connect the petitioner with the offence. She is a widow. The petitioner is falsely implicated in the case. B.A. No. 5996/2009 2 6. On a perusal of the records, prima facie, I am not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner that there is no material to connect the petitioner with the offence. In the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, I do not think that the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm