IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2010 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1899 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.1/2010 OF KAZHAKKUTTOM EXCISE RANGE .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- VALSALA, D/O.CHELLAMMA, MADANKAVIL VEEDU, VILAYILKULAM, KAZHAKKUTTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. EXCISE RANGE OFFICER, KAZHAKKUTTOM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.1899 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of April, 2010 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.1 of 2010 of Kazhakuttom Excise Range. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 55(a) & (i) of the Abkari Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 3.1.2010, the petitioner was found engaged in the sale of Indian made foreign liquor. A quantity of 2 litres of Indian made foreign liquor was seized from her possession. Since no woman police constable was available, the petitioner could not be arrested. The petitioner apprehends arrest. Therefore, she has filed this application for anticipatory bail. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no material to connect the petitioner with the offence. 6. On a consideration of the materials available on BA No.1899/2010 2 record, prima facie, I do not think that the contention raised by the petitioner can be accepted. It is also brought out that the petitioner is involved in another case of similar nature registered in the year 2007. 7. I do not think that this is a fit case where the discretionary relief under Section 438 can be granted in favour of the petitioner. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl