High Court Kerala High Court

Santha vs The State Of Kerala Through The … on 2 June, 2008

Kerala High Court
Santha vs The State Of Kerala Through The … on 2 June, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 3537 of 2008()


1. SANTHA, EDACKALCHIRA HOUSE,KUMMANAM
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE CIRCLE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :02/06/2008

 O R D E R
                             K.HEMA, J.

                 -----------------------------------------
                        B.A.No. 3537 of 2008
                 -----------------------------------------

              Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2008

                              O R D E R

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

2. According to prosecution, the Excise officials seized 20.700

litres of Indian made Foreign Liquor from the house of the

petitioner. A case was registered against the petitioner under

Section 55(a)and (i) of the Abkari Act. This petition is opposed.

Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is totally

innocent of the allegations made. Petitioner is residing with the

daughter ever since the demise of her husband for the past four

months. She is not in occupation of the house and hence she cannot

be implicated for possession of liquor in the house. The house is in a

dilapidated condition and hence anybody could keep the article, it is

submitted.

3. On hearing both sides, I find that the article being seized

from the house of the petitioner, it is the duty of the petitioner to

account for the possession of the article in her house. Except bare

assertions that she was not available in the house, there is nothing

to substantiate the plea of innocence. Of course, it was pointed out

BA.3537/08 2

that the petitioner was not arrested from the spot, since allegedly,

women police constables were not available. But in an offence of

this nature, this circumstances alone may not be sufficient for

invoking discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

This petition is dismissed.

K.HEMA, JUDGE

vgs.