IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 1070 of 2008()
1. SUSEELA,W/O.KARTHIKEYAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.GOPALAKRISHNAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :26/02/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
B.A. No. 1070 of 2008
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of February, 2008
ORDER
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner – a
woman, faces allegations under the Kerala Abkari Act. She
was allegedly found to be indulging in illicit sale of Indian
Made Foreign Liquor when she was intercepted by the Excise
officials on 9/2/08. She was apprehended at the scene; but the
formal arrest could not be effected as there was no woman
official in the Excise party which detected the offence. 1.5
litres of IMFL was found available with the petitioner and she
was allegedly found engaging herself in the actual culpable
illicit sale of IMFL.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is absolutely innocent. Even if the entire
allegations were accepted, possession of 1.5 litres of IMFL
B.A. No. 1070 of 2008 -: 2 :-
which was found in the possession of the petitioner cannot be
held to be objectionable. In these circumstances, anticipatory
bail may be granted to her, it is prayed.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application.
The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the available inputs
clearly show that the petitioner was indulging in the illegal
activity of illicit sale of IMFL. The quantity which was found
available in the possession of the petitioner is irrelevant as the
allegation is that the petitioner was found engaging herself in
the illicit sale of liquor.
4. The Case Diary has been placed before me for my
perusal. I have perused the same. I have gone through the
statements of witnesses recorded. There are indications to
suggest that the petitioner is habitually indulging in such activity
of illicit sale of liquor. The petitioner has no criminal
antecedents; in the sense that the petitioner has not been
arrayed as accused at any earlier point of time.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application.
The learned Public Prosecutor submits that no circumstances
B.A. No. 1070 of 2008 -: 3 :-
exist justifying or warranting the invocation of the discretion
under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C.
6. All the relevant inputs have been considered by me. I
am not satisfied that, in any view of the matter, this is a fit case
where the discretion under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. can or ought
to be invoked in favour of the petitioner. This is an eminently fit
case where the petitioner must resort to the ordinary and normal
course of appearing before the Investigating Officer or the
learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail
in the normal and usual course.
7. The fact that anticipatory bail had been granted by this
Court to another accused in another case as borne out by
Annexure-B order is not a valid or a proper reason to invoke
such discretion in favour of the petitioner in this case. The facts
and circumstances appear to be different when considered in the
light of the statements in the Case Diary.
8. In the result, this bail application is dismissed; but with
the observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the
B.A. No. 1070 of 2008 -: 4 :-
Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and seeks bail,
after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of
the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass
appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously.
Sd/-
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge
