KABC010090802024
IN THE COURT OF THE LII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-53)
Dated this the 18th day of April, 2024
PRESENT
Sri.B.G.Pramoda, B.A.L., LL.B.,
LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.
Crl.Misc.No.3218 / 2024
Petitioner:
Sri.Hosahalli Ramamurthy Satish
@ Satish H.R.
S/o Ramamurthy H.K.,
Aged about 57 years,
R/at No.22(14/2), Old Post Office Road,
Opp: Shanthi Sagar,
Chikkallasandra, Subramanyapura,
Bengaluru – 560061.
(By Sri.S.K.Mohan Kumar, advocates)
-V/S-
Respondent :
State of Karnataka by
The Inspector of Excise
Basavanagudi Range, BUD-06,
Bengaluru.
(Represented
Prosecutor)
by
learned
Public
2
Crl.Misc.No.3218/2024
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner u/Sec.438 of
Cr.P.C., praying to grant anticipatory bail to him in the event of
his arrest by respondent police in Cr.No.39/2023-24 of
Inspector of Excise, Basavanagudi Range BUD-06 for the
offences punishable u/Sec.14, 32(1), 38(A) and 43 of KE Act,
pending on the file of learned 2nd ACMM Bengaluru.
2.

It is stated in the petition that the respondent
Police have registered a case in Crime No.39/2023-24
against the petitioner by alleging the commission of offences
punishable u/Sec.14, 32(1), 38(A) and 43 of KE Act on the
basis of information given by Sudha K.J., Excise Inspector,
Basavanagudi. It is further stated in the petition that the
petitioner is innocent and he has not committed the alleged
offences. The respondent police are making hectic efforts to
arrest the petitioner. The petitioner has got reasonable
apprehension of his arrest by the respondent police. The
petitioner is permanent residents of address mentioned in the
cause title. The petitioner is aged person who is suffering
from old age ailments. No primafacie case made out against
him and no specific overt act attributed against the petitioner.
He hails from a respectable family and has no bad
antecedents. The petitioner is ready to abide by any terms
and conditions that may be imposed by the court for his
enlargement on bail. The petitioner is ready and willing to
Crl.Misc.No.3218/2024
3
offer surety to the satisfaction of the court. Hence, the
petitioner has prayed to allow the petition.
3.

The
learned
Public
Prosecutor
has
filed
objections to the bail application filed by the petitioner along
with I.O. report by opposing the grant of bail to the petitioner
by contending that the offences alleged to have been
committed by the petitioner is grave in nature and against to
the society. It is further stated in the objection that the
respondent police have issued notice to the petitioner under
section 41A of Cr.P.C. and enquired him and as such there no
apprehension of the petitioner by the respondent police. It is
further stated in the objection that the case is still in the
investigation stage. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he
may commit the offences of similar nature in future. The
petitioner will abscond and he may not appear before
Investigating Officer and before the court. It is further stated in
the objection that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail he may
try to destroy the evidence and he may threaten the
prosecution witnesses. Hence, the Learned Public Prosecutor
has prayed to reject the petition filed by the petitioner.
4.

Heard
the
arguments
of
Learned
Public
Prosecutor and Learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused
the petition, objection and other materials on record.

Crl.Misc.No.3218/2024
4
5.

Having done so, the following points will arise for
my consideration:
(1) Whether the petition filed by the
petitioner u/s.438 of Cr.P.C., is
deserves to be allowed?
(2) What order?
6.

My findings on the above points are as under:
(1) Point No.1
..

In the Negative
(2) Point No.2
..

As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
7.

Point
No.1:- The
respondent
police
have
registered Crime No.39/2023-24 of Inspector of Excise,
Basavanagudi Range BUD-06 against the petitioner
by
alleging the commission of offences punishable u/Sec.14,
32(1), 38(A) and 43 of KE Act on the basis of the information
given by one Sudha K.J., Excise Inspector, Basavanagudi
Range. The petitioner has produced the certified copy of FIR,
Complaint and other documents.
8.

It is alleged in the FIR that on 21.3.2024, at about
1.15 p.m. when the informant conducted raid on Adithya
Enterprises
DTP
centre
shop,
situated
in
No.52,
Tyagarajanagar Netaji Road, belonging to one Shankar, one
box having 12 liquor bottles with lable defence use only
5
Crl.Misc.No.3218/2024
was found in the store room of the shop. 9 liter of defence
liquor without security lable from Excise department was
found and the same was seized by the informant by
conducting mahazar. The petitioner was in possession of the
said liquor bottles illegally. Hence, it is alleged that the
petitioner has committed the alleged offences.
9.

The offences alleged against the petitioner are
non-bailable in nature. Since FIR is registered against the
petitioner by alleging the commission of non-bailable offence,
the petitioner has filed the present petition under the
apprehension of his arrest. It is the allegation of the petitioner
that in view of registering the FIR against him, the respondent
police are making hectic efforts to arrest the petitioner. The
petitioner has contended that he is innocent and he has not
committed the alleged offences and his name has been
falsely implicated in the FIR.
10.

It is argued by the learned PP that the petitioner
was already equired by the respondent police and he was
granted station bail and hence there no apprehension of
arrest of the petitioner as alleged in the petition and as such
the learned PP has prayed to dismiss the petition. On the
basis of said submission, the petitioner was directed to clarify
about the fact of his arrest by the respondent
police and
granting bail by them. As such, the learned counsel appearing
6
Crl.Misc.No.3218/2024
on behalf of the petitioner has filed memo before the court
stating that petitioner was arrested and was released on bail.
11. Anticipatory bail u/Sec.438 of Cr.P.C. can be
granted to any person who have got apprehension of his
arrest on the allegation of commission of non-bailable
offence. If there is no such apprehension, power u/Sec.438 of
Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised. Since the petitioner was already
arrested and released on bail by the respondent police, the
question of arrest of the petitioner again by the respondent
police does not arise.

Hence as it rightly argued by the
learned PP, there is no
apprehension of arrest of the
petitioner by the respondent police. The petitioner has failed
to produce any materials to show that he has got
apprehension of his arrest by the respondent police. As such,
it is not fit case to exercise discretion of the court to grant
anticipatory bail to the petitioner as prayed for in the petition.
As such, the petition filed by the petitioner is deserves to be
dismissed. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the
Negative.
12. Point No.2:- In view of my findings on point No.1, I
proceed to pass the following:
Crl.Misc.No.3218/2024
7
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioner u/Sec.438 of
Cr.P.C., is hereby dismissed.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer, corrected and
then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of April,
2024).

(B.G.Pramoda)
LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.

8
Crl.Misc.No.3218/2024
9
Crl.Misc.No.3218/2024