The LXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge of Bengaluru City has granted anticipatory bail to Smt. Manjula K.G., who was arrayed as the second accused in a case involving the illegal transportation of liquor. The order, delivered on June 23, 2022, by Judge Sri. A. Earanna, comes as a relief to the petitioner following a procedural technicality that necessitated a fresh filing after a previous bail order contained a typographical error regarding the jurisdictional court.
The case, registered as Crime No. 8/2021-22 by the Excise Police Station, Vijayanagar Range, involves alleged violations of Sections 11, 12, 14, 15, 32, 38(A), and 43 of the Karnataka Excise Act. These sections collectively deal with the illegal import, export, transport, and possession of excisable articles without valid permits or licenses.
Background of the Excise Case
The prosecution’s case originated from an incident on August 18, 2021. According to the police report, Excise officials were on patrolling duty near the Maruthi Temple bus stand in the Vijayanagar Range. Acting on credible information, the team conducted a raid in the presence of two independent witnesses (panchas).
During the operation, they intercepted a white and black mixed Hero Mastro two-wheeler bearing registration number KA-02-HR-9703. The officials discovered that the first accused (Accused No. 1) was in possession of 96 tetra packs of “Hywards Punch Whisky,” each containing 90 ml of liquor, totaling 8.640 liters. The transport was conducted without any permit or license required under state law. Upon seeing the excise staff, the first accused reportedly fled the scene, leaving the vehicle and the contraband behind.
The petitioner, Smt. Manjula K.G., was subsequently named as Accused No. 2 in the charge sheet filed by the investigating agency following the completion of their probe.
Grounds for Anticipatory Bail
In her petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), Manjula K.G. asserted her innocence, claiming she had been falsely implicated based on a fabricated complaint. Her counsel, Basavaraj N., argued that the petitioner is a law-abiding citizen and a permanent resident of Anjananagar with deep roots in the community. Furthermore, the defense emphasized that she is the primary breadwinner for her family and faced a genuine apprehension of imminent arrest by the Excise Police.
The defense also highlighted that the investigation had already been completed and a charge sheet (CC No. 2181/2022) had been filed before the court. Since the material objects had already been seized and the offenses were not punishable by death or life imprisonment, the defense argued that custodial interrogation was unnecessary.
The Public Prosecutor opposed the plea, contending that the charge sheet contained sufficient material to prove the petitioner’s involvement. The state expressed concerns that if granted bail, the petitioner might threaten witnesses, destroy evidence, or commit similar offenses in the future.
Rectifying a Typographical Error
A unique aspect of this proceeding was that the court had actually granted anticipatory bail to Manjula K.G. previously, on June 4, 2022. However, a typographical error in the operative portion of that order directed the petitioner to seek release through the 4th ACMM (Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate) Court, whereas the actual jurisdictional court for the case was the 24th ACMM. This technical error prevented the petitioner from executing the bail, leading to the current petition to rectify the record.
Court’s Observations and Ruling
Judge A. Earanna, in his reasoning, noted that the offenses under the Karnataka Excise Act are triable by a Magistrate and do not carry the severity of life imprisonment or the death penalty. The court observed that the investigation was over, the liquor and vehicle were already in police custody, and the petitioner was no longer required for interrogation.
Citing the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. V. Vijay Sai Reddy, the judge noted that the court must satisfy itself of a genuine case and the possibility of securing the accused’s presence at trial rather than establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at the bail stage.
The court found that the petitioner’s residency and community ties made the possibility of her absconding “too remote.” Consequently, the court allowed the petition to ensure the petitioner could properly surrender and provide surety before the correct jurisdictional magistrate.
Final Order and Conditions
The court ordered that in the event of her arrest in Crime No. 8/2021, the respondent police must enlarge Manjula K.G. on bail upon her execution of a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000 with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the 24th ACMM, Bengaluru.
The bail is subject to the following conditions:
- The petitioner shall not tamper with prosecution evidence or influence witnesses directly or indirectly.
- The petitioner shall not indulge in offenses of a similar nature.
- The prosecution is at liberty to move for cancellation of bail if any of these conditions are violated.
This ruling clarifies the legal standing of the accused and ensures that procedural errors do not obstruct the fundamental right to seek bail in non-capital offenses.