IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6105 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.77/2008 OF MAVELIKKARA EXCISE RANGE PETITIONER (S): ACCUSED --------------------------- CISLY JACOB, W/O. LATE JOSEPH, AGED 55 YEARS, PARUVATHARAYIL, CHENNITHALA, THRIPERUMTHUR, MAVELIKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.A.SHAFEEK RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, MAVELIKKARA EXCISE RANGE, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6105 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th November, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 55(a) of Abkari Act. According to prosecution, 105 litres of wash were seized from the house of the petitioner. Petitioner could not be arrested from the spot and hence, the case was registered under Section 55(a) of Abkari Act against the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. The property from which the article is allegedly seized does not belong to her. She was also not in possession of the said property. The address of the accused is shown as “Cicly, W/o.Kunjumon, Mukkathu Lakshamveedu colony, Eramathoor P.O., Mannar” in the records prepared in connection with the crime. But, petitioner's details are “Cisly Joseph, W/o.late Joseph, aged 55 years, Paruvatharayil, Chennithala, Thriperumthur, Mavelikkara”. Petitioner is residing in another BA No.6105/2008 2 house and as per Annexur A1 ration card, issued to her, the address shown is “Paruvatharayil, Thriperumthura P.O., Mavelikkara”. The identity card Annexure A2 also reveals that petitioner's house no. is “1/162, Peruvatharayil, Chennithala Thriperumthur, Mavelikkara”. The details shown in the documents have absolutely no connection with the details of accused referred to in the prosecution records, it is submitted. 4. It is also submitted that her husband's name is also different in the document prepared by the prosecution. She is described as Cicly, W/o.Kunjumon, but, she is wife of late Joseph. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that in the house shown in the prosecution records, petitioner's daughter was residing and after the death of her husband, she left for UAE and she is there since the past one year. But, petitioner has nothing to do with the said house, it is submitted. At any rate, there is evidently a major discrepancy and hence, petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. Learned public prosecutor submitted that it cannot be said that there is a difference in the address. The husband of the petitioner is known as “Kunjumon” also and he is described as BA No.6105/2008 3 Joseph alias Kunjumon in the records. It is also submitted that address shown by the petitioner in this petition is the address in which she was residing earlier. But, at present, and during the relevant period she was residing in the address shown in the prosecution records. The said property belongs to the petitioner and she is in possession of the same, it is submitted. 6. Learned public prosecutor also submitted that the house shown in the electoral card and ration card etc. and the house which is shown in the mahazar are situated close to each other. It is also submitted that as per the instructions, present ration card is issued to the petitioner in the same address which is shown in the mahazar. Therefore, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner has only one ration card and the copy is Annexure A1. 7. On hearing both sides and on perusal of documents and records, I find that there is a strong arguable case for the petitioner, supported by documents and hence, if anticipatory bail is refused, it may result in injustice. Therefore, I issue the following directions: BA No.6105/2008 4 (1) Petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate court within seven days from today and she shall be released on bail on her executing bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate on the following conditions: (i) Petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer within two days from release on bail and co-operate with investigation. (ii) Petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or commit any offence while on bail. Petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl