IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 6442 of 2008()
1. RUGMINI AMMA, AGED 60 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.NIREESH MATHEW
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :24/10/2008
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
-------------------------------------------------
B.A.No.6442 of 2008
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of October, 2008
O R D E R
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offence is under Section 8(2) of Abkari
Act. According to prosecution, petitioner (second accused) was
the owner of the house from where 25 litres of arrack were
seized. The article was in possession of the first accused, who is
her son. On search, the article was seized from the house.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
incident occurred on 2.9.2008 at about 10 p.m. As per the
mahazar, on getting reliable information that the first accused
was possessing illicit arrack, the Excise Officials came to the
house of the petitioner and a person was found standing in front
of the house, but, he ran away on seeing the Excise Officials.
Petitioner was present in the house and on questioning her, she
was informed that it was her son who ran away. On search, 25
litres of arrack were seized from the house.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the
BA No.6442/08 2
offence under Section 8(2) of Abkari Act will not be attracted as
against petitioner because there is no case and she was found
dealing with article. As per the prosecution case itself, the first
accused was in possession of arrack and petitioner was only in
constructive possession of the article. The information received
itself was that first accused was in possession of the article.
The offence committed by petitioner would fall only under
Section 64(A) of Abkari Act which provides that any owner of a
building permits any person to use the building for manufacture
sale or storing for sale of liquor etc. in contravention of the Act,
he shall be punishable with fine which shall not less than
Rs.25,000/- unless he proves to the satisfaction of the court that
all due and reasonable precautions were taken by him to prevent
such use. The said offence is bailable one and petitioner can
be said to have committed only such offence, even if the
entire case is accepted. If, petitioner, who is the mother of first
accused is remanded to custody on these allegations, she will
suffer irreparable loss and injury and hence, she may be
granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted.
BA No.6442/08 3
On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that petitioner can be
granted anticipatory bail on conditions.
Hence, the following order is passed:
Petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate
Court concerned within seven days from today and
she shall be released on bail on her executing bond
for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the
like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate
on condition that she will report before the
Investigating Officer as and when directed and she
shall not commit any offence while on bail.
The petition is allowed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE
csl
BA No.6442/08 4