IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 27TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6746 of 2008() ------------------------------------------ (CRIME NO.159/2008 OF KARUNAGAPPALLY EXCISE RANGE) PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- 1. RENUKA, W/O.UDAYABHANU, ASAN BHAVANAM, ATTINADU NORTH, KULASEKHARAPURAM VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK. 2. UDAYABHANU, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, ASAN BHAVANAM, ATTINADU NORTH, KULASEKHARAPURAM VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.S.GIRISH SRI.HARIDAS RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PREVENTIVE OFFICER, EXCISE RANGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/11/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6746 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th November, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 55(g) and 8(2) of Abkari Act. According to prosecution, the Excise Officials conducted raid in a house and found 100 litres of wash and 10 litres of arrack in the godown and the bed room of the house. First Petitioner was present in the house at the time of search. A case was registered against first petitioner and her husband for various offences under the Abkari Act. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the property from which the articles were seized belong to Amrithananthamayi Madom, since it was sold by petitioners as per document no.444/06 on 8.2.2006. Petitioners are not in possession of the said property, after the sale, it is submitted. It is also submitted that Annexure I certificate issued by Secretary of Panchayath will show that petitioners are not residing in the property from which the seizure was effected. Therefore, petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned public BA No. 6746 /2008 2 prosecutor submitted that the property from where the articles were seized is in possession of petitioners. It is true that a particular property was sold to Amrithanandamayi Madom as per document no.444/06 on 8.2.2006. But, seizure was not effected from the building situated in the said property. There are mistakes in the details of the relevant building shown in the mahazar and this happened since those were recorded as furnished by the first accused, who was present in the house at the time of raid. But, on investigation, it was found that she was deliberately giving false details to the officials at the time of preparation of the mahazar. Instead of furnishing details of the building from which articles were seized, first petitioner furnished the details relating to the property, which was sold as per document no.444/06. 5. Learned public prosecutor submitted that fortunately for the prosecution, electricity consumer number bad been noted in the mahazar as “24945” and in the light of the dispute raised by learned counsel for petitioners, detailed investigation was conducted and it was revealed that in the said consumer number electric connection was issued to first petitioner on 18.12.2006, much before the incident. It is also revealed that after the sale of the property in favour of Amrithanandamayi Madom, another BA No. 6746 /2008 3 document was executed on the same day as document No.445/06 as per which the present property was purchased. A certificate from the authorities was also procured to show that petitioners are in possession of the building from where the articles were seized. On the facts of the case, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 6. On hearing both sides, it prima-facie appears that there was misrepresentation by the first petitioner to the officials which led to the discrepancy in the details of the building from where the contraband articles were seized. Petitioners cannot take advantage of such discrepancy especially, in the light of the materials now brought in by the investigation. On the facts of this case, considering the nature of allegations made, I am satisfied that it is not a fit case at all to grant anticipatory bail. This is particularly so, since it appears prima-facie that a deliberate attempt was made to mislead the officials in recording the details of the relevant building in the mahazar and the document. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl