IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5952 of 2009() ------------------------------------- CRIME NO. 163/2009 OF KARUNAGAPPALLY EXCISE RANGE .............................. PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------- 1. AMBUJAKSHI, AGED 40 YEARS W/O. SIVAN PILLAI, ASHA BHAVANAM, PAVUMBA VILLAGE, KARUNAPPALLY, KOLLAM. 2. SIVAN PILLAI, AGED 46 YEARS, ASHA BHAVANAM, PAVUMBA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.VINCENT JOSEPH RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF KARUNAGAPPALLY EXCISE RANGE THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. M.S. BREEZ PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 5952 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of November, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.163/2009 of Karunagappally Excise Range. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 55(a)(i) of the Abkari Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 16.09.2009, the first accused was found engaged in the sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor. Further allegation is that the second accused, husband of the first accused was also involved in the offence. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is nothing to connect the accused with the crime. It is submitted that the petitioners are very poor and that they are to be protected by the orders passed by the Court. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. B.A. No. 5952 of 2009 2 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the allegation levelled against the petitioners and the nature and gravity of the offence, I do not think that it would be proper to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln