High Court Kerala High Court

Saraswathy Amma vs State Of Kerala on 10 February, 2009

Kerala High Court
Saraswathy Amma vs State Of Kerala on 10 February, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 7927 of 2008()


1. SARASWATHY AMMA, W/O.SASIDHARAN NAIR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.RASHEED C.NOORANAD

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :10/02/2009

 O R D E R
                                 K. HEMA, J.
                 ---------------------------------------------------
                         Bail Appl. No. 7927 of 2008
                 ---------------------------------------------------
             Dated this the 10th day of February, 2009.

                                     ORDER

Petition for anticipatory bail.

2. The alleged offence is under Section 55(i) of Abkari Act.

According to prosecution, petitioner was found engaged in sale of

Indian made foreign liquor from behind a c-class shop run by

her husband on 19.12.2008 and 600 ml. of Indian made foreign

liquor was seized from her possession.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner

is a woman. She was actually not involved in the offence. Her

husband is running a c-class shop and petitioner is deliberately

made an accused in this crime. Her mother is sick and she has to

look after her mother and some leniency may be shown and

anticipatory bail may be granted to her.

4. This petition is opposed. Learned counsel for petitioner

submitted that considering the allegations made, it is not a fit

case to grant anticipatory bail

5. On hearing both sides, I find that the offence alleged is

under the Abkari Act. Even for granting bail under Section 437

Cr.P.C., petitioner has to establish that she is innocent and that

[B.A.No.7927/08] 2

she will not commit offence. The submissions made by learned

counsel for petitioner are not sufficient to come to a finding that

petitioner is not guilty. In the above circumstances, there is no

special circumstance to grant anticipatory bail. Though assertions

are made that petitioner’s mother is sick etc. those are only bare

assertions. On considering the nature of allegations made, I am

satisfied that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.

Petitioner is at liberty to raise the same contention while she

surrenders and applies for bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C. In the

above circumstances, the following order is passed:

1) Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating

officer forthwith and co-operate with the

investigation. Whether she surrenders or not, police

is at liberty to arrest her and proceed in accordance

with law.

2) No further application for anticipatory bail by the

petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this

Court.

Petition is dismissed.

K. HEMA, JUDGE.

Krs.