High Court Kerala High Court

Minimol vs State Of Kererala on 26 August, 2008

Kerala High Court
Minimol vs State Of Kererala on 26 August, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 5228 of 2008()


1. MINIMOL, D/O.PRABHAVATHY, 32 YEARS, TC.3
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.G.SUDHEER

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :26/08/2008

 O R D E R
                               K.HEMA, J.
               -------------------------------------------------------
                 Bail Application No.5228 of 2008
               -------------------------------------------------------
              Dated this the 26th day of August, 2008



                                  O R D E R

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

2. The alleged offence is under Section 58 of Abkari Act.

According to prosecution, on 17.3.2008, at about 11.45 a.m.,

accused was found in possession of 7.500 litres of coloured

liquor.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. She

has three minor children and they are dependent on her. Her

mother had lodged complains before the Excise Officials and

petitioner is not in terms with her mother since petitioner

married a man on her choice from another community. This is

the circumstance under which a false case is lodged against the

petitioner, it is submitted. The article was purchased from

Beverages Corporation and hence, offence under Section 58 will

not be attracted, it is argued.

4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor

BA No.5228/2008 2

submitted that the article was seized from the possession of the

petitioner. Her name and details are mentioned in the mahazar.

Five bottles each containing 1.5 litre of coloured liquor were

seized from the possession of the petitioner and none of the

bottles contained the sticker of Beverages Corporation. Those

were all seized. The petitioner had no explanation for her

possession. Therefore, the offence under Section 58 is clearly

attracted, it is submitted.

5. On hearing both sides, I do not find that this is a fit

case to grant anticipatory bail, especially since the petitioner is

not able to substantiate her innocence in the absence of any

supporting materials placed before this Court.

Petition is dismissed.

K.HEMA, JUDGE

csl