In a significant judicial order passed on April 5, 2024, the LXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-64), Sri A.V. Patil, B.Com., LL.B., allowed the anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3060/2024. The court granted pre-arrest bail protection to Chandrappa M in connection with Crime No. 32/2023-24 registered by the Excise Inspector, Division-4, BUD-1, RMV Range, Bengaluru. The petitioner was apprehending arrest for offences punishable under Sections 11, 14, and 15, which are penalizable under Sections 32, 38(A), and 43 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965.

Factual Matrix and Prosecution Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a raid conducted on March 24, 2024, by the Excise Inspector of the RMV Range while on patrolling duty. According to the prosecution case, the officer received credible intelligence that illegal liquor was being stored for commercial sale in a godown located in the basement of No. 1136, Shop No. 01, 2nd Main Road, BNS Complex, Yeshwanthapura, Bengaluru.

Acting on the information, the excise team accompanied by staff and independent panchas conducted a search of the premise. The raid resulted in the discovery and seizure of various brands of whiskey, defence-issued liquor, and vodka bottles, totaling 117 bottles (87.750 liters). The excise department seized the contraband under a spot mahazar and registered Crime No. 32/2023-24 against Chandrappa M for alleged contravention of statutory licensing provisions under the Karnataka Excise Act.

The details of the petitioner as per court records are:

• Chandrappa M: Aged about 54 years, son of Munivenkatappa, residing at No. 779/A/14, 5th Cross, Triveni Road, Gokula 1st Stage, 2nd Phase, Yeshwanthapura, Bengaluru – 560 022.

Arguments Advanced on Behalf of the Petitioner

Appearing on behalf of the applicant, learned advocate Sri Raghunatha Gowda S. presented several grounds seeking pre-arrest protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C.:

• Innocence and Absence at the Spot: The petitioner maintained that he was entirely innocent, was not present inside the godown at the time of the raid, and never stored liquor bottles in the premises for illegal transport or sale.
• Political Context Allegation: It was submitted that the petitioner works in a private company with a stable source of income. The defence contended that due to the impending Lok Sabha elections, the complainant agency falsely implicated him in the case.
• Non-Capital Offences and Local Roots: The offences alleged under the Karnataka Excise Act are triable by a Magistrate and do not carry penalties of death or life imprisonment. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Bengaluru with no prior criminal antecedents.
• Undertaking to Cooperate: The applicant assured the court of his full cooperation with the investigating agency, willingness to submit to all imposed conditions, and readiness to furnish solvent sureties.

Objections Raised by the Prosecution

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, filing a statement of objections:

• Prima Facie Material and Economic Offence: The prosecution submitted that case records and the recovery of 87.75 liters of illicit/defence liquor established a prima facie case against the applicant.
• Impact of Illegal Storage: It was argued that storing unexcised liquor without a valid license constitutes a serious economic offence under the state excise framework.
• Apprehension of Interference: The prosecution expressed concern that if enlarged on pre-arrest bail, the petitioner might tamper with evidence, threaten witnesses, or evade investigation.

Judicial Findings and Detailed Legal Reasoning

The Sessions Court evaluated the complaint, seizure records, and arguments from both sides to decide Point No. 1: whether the petitioner made out a case for pre-arrest protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

1. Seizure of Contraband and Status of Investigation

Judge A.V. Patil observed that the subject matter of the crime—117 bottles containing 87.75 liters of whiskey and other spirits—had already been seized by the excise authorities under a formal spot panchanama in the presence of panchas. The court held that because the physical contraband was already in police custody, a major portion of the investigation stood completed, reducing the necessity for custodial interrogation.

2. Nature of Penalties and Jurisdiction

The court emphasized that the offences alleged under Sections 11, 14, 15, 32, 38(A), and 43 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, are triable by a Magistrate and do not attract sentences of death or life imprisonment. While noting that the FIR offences are non-bailable under the Excise Act, the court clarified that the apprehension of arrest was genuine and that the ultimate guilt or innocence of the accused remains a matter to be proven during trial.

3. Protection Against Unnecessary Detention

Addressing the prosecution’s argument regarding economic offences, the court held that since the physical property was secured, the interests of the State could be adequately protected by imposing strict conditions—including regular appearance before the Investigating Officer—rather than denying pre-arrest protection.

It remains a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that an order deciding an anticipatory bail application is procedural in nature and does not constitute an expression on the ultimate guilt or innocence of the accused, which remains subject to full-fledged trial.

Final Pre-Arrest Bail Order and Imposed Conditions

Answering Point No. 1 in the affirmative, LXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge Sri A.V. Patil allowed the petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and passed the following order:

The bail petition filed by the petitioner under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed, and anticipatory bail is granted. In the event of his arrest by the Investigating Officer in Crime No. 32/2023-24 of the respondent Police for offences punishable under Sections 11, 14, 15, 32, 38(A), and 43 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, the I.O. is directed to enlarge him on bail on executing a personal bond for Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety for the likesum, subject to the following conditions:

1. The petitioner shall appear before the respondent police within 20 days from the date of this order.
2. The petitioner shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses in any manner.
3. The petitioner shall appear before the court during trial and cooperate for the disposal of the case.
4. The petitioner shall not commit offences similar to the offence alleged against him.
5. The petitioner shall appear before the I.O. as and when called for investigation.
6. The petitioner shall furnish an attested copy of his official photo ID proof (such as Aadhaar card) and current residential address proof to the I.O.

Note: This order of anticipatory bail does not in any manner limit or restrict the statutory rights and duties of the police or investigating agency to investigate the charges against the petitioner.