KABC010159062022
IN THE COURT OF THE LXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY [CCH.63]
Dated: This the 23 rd day of June, 2022
Present: Sri. A. EARANNA, M.Com., L.L.M.,
LXII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
Crl.Misc.No. 5923/2022
Petitioner
Smt. Manjula K.G.,
W/o Shivanna M.G.,
Aged about 32 years
R/at No. F-133, 6th Cross,
2nd Main, Magadi main road,
BEL Layout, 1st Stage,
Anjananagar,
Bengaluru
By Basavaraj N., Advocate.
Vs.

Respondent:
State by Excise Police station
Vijayanagar range,
Bengaluru
Rep. by Public Prosecutor.

Crl.Misc.No. 5923/2022
2
ORDER
The petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section
438 of Cr.P.C for an order of anticipatory bail.
2.

On
the
strength
of
complainant
the
Excise
Vijayanagar range police have registered the case in Crime No.
8/2021-22 for the offence punishable under Sections 11, 12, 14,
15, 32, 38(A), 43 of Karnataka Excise Act. The respondent police
after completion of investigation have filed the charge sheet in CC
No. 2181/2022.
3.

Brief facts of the case is that the complainant and his
staff, where patrolling duty. On one credible information, along with
two panchas and found accused No. 1 in possession and
transporting 96 Hywards, Punch Whisky Tetra packs of 96 ml each
in all 8.640 Ltrs without permit or license. On white and black
mixed Hero Mastro two wheeler vehicle bearing Reg No. KA-02HR-9703.
4.

In the bail petition it is contended that the petitioner is
innocent and she has not committed the alleged offences. The
respondent police have falsely implicated the petitioner in the case
on hand on the basis of false complaint. The petitioner is the
permanent resident of her address shown in the cause title of the
petition. The petitioner is
having deep root in the society. The
petitioner is the only bread earner to his family. The respondent
3
Crl.Misc.No. 5923/2022
police are making hectic efforts to arrest the petitioner and hence,
on genuine apprehension of her imminent arrest by the respondent
Police, the petitioner has been constrained to file this petition for
anticipatory bail. The petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions
that may be imposed by the Court and he is ready to furnish surety
to ensure her regular attendance before the concerned Court. Inter
alia, on these grounds, the petitioner pray for allowing of the bail
petition.
5.

Whereas, the learned Public Prosecutor filed objection
along with report of I.O., by contending that the charge sheet
material reveals that the petitioner has committed the offences
punishable under Sections 11, 12, 14, 15, 32, 38(A), 43 of
Karnataka Excise Act. At this stage, the petitioner is granted with
anticipatory bail, the petitioner may threaten the prosecution
witnesses and she may destroy the prosecution evidence or she
may commit the similar kind of offences and the possibility of
petitioner fleeing away from justice cannot be ruled out. Inter alia,
on these grounds, the learned Public Prosecutor prays for
dismissing of the bail petition.
6.

Heard both sides. Perused the record.

7.

Following points arise for consideration of this Court:
1.

Whether the petitioner has made out ground
to enlarge her on anticipatory bail under
Section 438 of Cr.P.C.?

Crl.Misc.No. 5923/2022
4
2.

3.

What Order?

My findings on the above Points are as follows:
Point No.1 – In the Affirmative
Point No.2
– As per Final Order, for the
following:
REASONS
8.

Point No.1:
The brief facts of the prosecution
complaint is that, the complainant and his staff, where patrolling
on 18.08.2021 at 2.10 pm near Bus stand by the side of Maruthi
Temple Vijayanahar Range, Vijanayanagar, Bengaluru on credible
information, along with two panchas and found accused No. 1 in
possession and transporting 96 Hywards, Punch Whisky Tetra
packs of 96 ml each in all 8.640 Ltrs without permit or license. On
white and black mixed Hero Mastro two wheeler vehicle bearing
Reg No. KA-02-HR-9703. On seeing the complainant and his staff
accused No. 1 ran. The complainant and his staff found above
said liquor and seized the same under panchanama in presence
of two pancha from 2.30 pm to 3.10 pm on the spot the
respondent seized the vehicle and registered this case against
accused No. 1 and 2 as stated above. The petitioner herein
arrayed as accused No.2 in the charge sheet.

5
9.

Crl.Misc.No. 5923/2022
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner
has not committed any offence as alleged by the complainant
police. Alleged offence is not punishable with life imprisonment or
death sentence. The respondent police after completion of
investigation have already filed the charge sheet. The accused is
ready to abide by the conditions imposed by the Court. Therefore
he prays to allow the bail application. Learned Public Prosecutor
have argued that if the accused released on bail then there is
chances of abscond and there is chances of destroy the
documents and threaten the prosecution witnesses. Therefore she
prays to reject the bail application.
10.

On perusal of materials on record, it shows that the
alleged offences are non bailable in nature and not punishable
with death sentence or imprisonment for life. Since the respondent
police after completion of investigation, have already filed the
charge sheet and also recovered the material objects. The alleged
offences are triable by the Magistrate Court. Further the petitioner
is not required for further investigation or interrogation.

While
passing the bail order the Court has to see previous bad
antecedents of the accused.
11.

This court has already granted the anticipatory bail to
the present accused on 04.06.2022, after considering the bail
petition as well as objection statement and also available
materials, due to typographical mistake in the operative portion of
6
Crl.Misc.No. 5923/2022
the order mentioned that “ respondent police are hereby directed
to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of her
arrest in Crime No. 8/2021 of respondent Police Station for the
offence punishable under Sections 11, 12, 14, 15, 32, 38(A), 43 of
Karnataka Excise Act to the satisfaction of 4th ACMM, Bengaluru”
on execution of her personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with one
surety for the like sum on the following conditions. Therefore the
counsel for the petitioner argued that, this court has not ordered to
Hon’ble 24th ACMM court to release the accused. Therefore he
again filed the bail petition to release the accused on bail.
12.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Central
Bureau of investigation Vs. V.Vijay Sai Reddy 2013 (7)
SCALE 15 was pleased to express that; “28. While granting bail,
the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature
of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment
which conviction will entail, the character of the accused,
circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable
possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial,
reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with,
the larger interests of the public/ state and other similar
consideration. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of
granting bail, the legislature has used the words ‘reasonable
grounds for believing” instead of “the evidence” which means the
court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether
there is a genuine case against the accused and
that the
7
Crl.Misc.No. 5923/2022
prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in
support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the
evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt.
13.

The petitioner claims to be the permanent resident of
address shown in the cause title of the bail petition. It is urged that
the petitioner is ready and willing to furnish surety to the
satisfaction of this Court to ensure their attendance before the I.O
and the Court and he is also ready to abide by any conditions
imposed by Court. As such, possibility of the abscondance of
petitioner is too remote.
14.

This court has already granted the bail to the present
petitioner, due to typographical mistake it has mentioned 4 th
ACMM Court. Therefore on considering the material as well as
submission made by the counsel for the petitioner and
prosecution, this court is allowed the bail petition.
15.

The apprehension and interest of the prosecution that
the petitioner may tamper with the prosecution witnesses, flee
away from justice can be taken and safeguarded by imposing
some suitable conditions. Hence by considering all these aspects,
I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for bail and
accordingly, I answer the above Point No.1 in the Affirmative.

Crl.Misc.No. 5923/2022
8
16.

Point No.2: In view of my findings on Point No.1, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The anticipatory bail petition filed by
the petitioner under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C is hereby allowed.
The respondent police are hereby
directed to enlarge the petitioner on
anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest
in Crime
No. 8/2021
of respondent
Police Station for the offence punishable
under Sections 11, 12, 14, 15, 32, 38(A),
43 of Karnataka Excise Act
to the
satisfaction of 24 th ACMM, Bengaluru on
execution
of
her
personal
bond
for
Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the like
sum on the following conditions:
1. The Petitioner shall not tamper with
the prosecution evidence or influence the
prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly in
any manner.
2. The Petitioner shall not indulge with
offence of like nature.

Crl.Misc.No. 5923/2022
9
3. The petitioner shall not tamper with
the prosecution witnesses.
4. In case, if the petitioner violate any of
the
above
prosecution
mentioned
is at
liberty
conditions,
to
move
the
an
application in such cases for cancellation of
bail.

(Dictated to the Typist directly on computer, computerized printout taken thereof
is corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 23 rd
day of June, 2022).

(A. EARANNA)
LXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.