IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2009 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6482 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.68/09 OF KONNI EXCISE RANGE PETITIONER (S): ACCUSED --------------------------- VASANTHA, D/O. LAKSHMI, CHARUVIL PUTHEN VEEDU, NENJIKKUNNILAM.P.O, THALAYARA, VALLICODE VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT /STATE --------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. EXCISE INSPECTOR, KONNI EXCISE RANGE, KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6482 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of December, 2009 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.68 of 2009 of Konni Excise Range. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act. 3. The petitioner has filed the Bail Application stating that she does not know the crime number and that the allegation appears to be that on 19.8.2009, 60 litres of wash was seized from a purampoke situated about 1½ kilometres away from the residence of the petitioner and that the excise party are trying to falsely implicate the petitioner in the offence. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that Crime No.68 of 2009 was registered against the petitioner on the allegation that on 19.8.2009, a quantity of 60 litres of wash was seized from the house of the petitioner. The petitioner ran away from the place on seeing the excise party and therefore, she could not be arrested. BA No.6482/2009 2 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the petitioner, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is stated that the petitioner is a widow and that she is not involved in any other offence of similar nature. This by itself is not sufficient to enable the petitioner to get anticipatory bail. If all the first offenders in abkari cases were to be granted anticipatory bail, hundreds of such instances would arise. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept this contention put forward by the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl