The LXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge in Bengaluru has granted anticipatory bail to 33-year-old Kalimuthu M, who was accused of illegally transporting liquor during an election inspection. The court presided over by Sri. A.V. Patil delivered the order on April 10, 2024, noting that the primary investigation was complete and the alleged offences were triable by a Magistrate.

Background of the Case and Election Inspection

The legal proceedings against Kalimuthu M began on the night of March 26, 2024. According to the prosecution, excise officials were conducting a routine election-related inspection in front of the Woodlands Hotel on Rajaram Mohan Roy Road in Sampangiramanagara. During the heightened security of the election period, authorities were specifically monitoring the movement of prohibited goods and unauthorized quantities of alcohol.

At approximately 9:30 p.m., the complainant intercepted a white Suzuki Access-125 two-wheeler with registration number KA-05/QA-2965. Upon searching the vehicle, officials discovered a blue bag placed at the footrest. Inside the bag were “Bangalore Brandy 40” alcohol tetra packets. Each packet contained 180 ml, totaling a significant volume of liquor being transported without the required legal permits or licenses.

Legal Charges and Initial Police Action

The Sampangiramanagara Range Excise Inspector registered a case under Crime No. 72/2023-24/39IE/390206. The charges leveled against Kalimuthu M included violations of Sections 11 and 14 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, which are punishable under Sections 32, 34, 38(a), and 43 of the same Act. These sections generally deal with the illegal import, export, transport, manufacture, and possession of intoxicants.

Initially, the petitioner was detained at the scene, and a mahazar (seizure memo) was conducted to document the confiscated alcohol and the vehicle. However, after a preliminary inquiry, the police released him after serving a notice under Section 41(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which mandates appearance before the police instead of immediate arrest in certain categories of offences. Despite this release, the looming threat of formal arrest during the ongoing investigation prompted Kalimuthu to approach the Sessions Court for anticipatory bail.

Arguments Presented in Court

The petitioner’s counsel, Sri. K.N. Narayana Swamy, argued that Kalimuthu was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case. The defense emphasized that the recovery of the liquor and the documentation of the seizure (mahazar) were already completed by the excise officials. Therefore, there was no need for custodial interrogation as there was nothing further to be seized from the petitioner. The defense further pointed out that the offences in question do not carry the death penalty or life imprisonment.

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the application, stating that the materials collected during the investigation provided prima facie evidence of the petitioner’s involvement in an economic offence. The state argued that the illegal transport of liquor, especially during an election window, is a serious matter that warrants strict judicial scrutiny.

The Court’s Rationale for Granting Bail

In evaluating the petition, Judge A.V. Patil highlighted several critical factors that favored the petitioner. First, the court observed that the “subject matter of the crime”—the liquor packets—had already been seized in the presence of witnesses. This meant that the major portion of the investigation was effectively concluded.

The judge also noted that Kalimuthu M had no known criminal antecedents and was a resident of the address provided in the court documents, suggesting he was not a flight risk. Furthermore, the court clarified that although these are cognizable offences, the apprehension of the state could be managed through stringent conditions rather than pre-trial detention.

“The involvement of the petitioner and commission of offences by him in the alleged crime is yet to be proved,” the court remarked, reinforcing the principle of “bail, not jail” for offences that are triable by a Magistrate and do not involve capital punishment.

Final Order and Conditions of Release

The court allowed the petition under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. In the event of his arrest, the Investigating Officer is directed to release Kalimuthu M on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety for a like sum.

To ensure his cooperation with the law, the court imposed the following conditions:

• The petitioner must appear before the respondent police within 20 days of the order.
• He is strictly prohibited from tampering with prosecution witnesses.
• He must attend all trial proceedings and cooperate with the disposal of the case.
• He must not commit any similar offences while out on bail.
• He must appear before the Investigating Officer whenever summoned for further investigation.
• He must provide attested copies of his Aadhaar card and residential proof to the authorities.

The court concluded by stating that this order does not restrict the rights of the investigating agency to continue their probe into the charges against the petitioner.