In a notable judicial order delivered 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 Petition No. 2913/2024. The court granted pre-arrest bail protection to Jayaprakash in connection with Crime No. 23/2023-24 registered by the Excise Inspector, RMV Range-04, BUD-01, Rajmahal Vilas, Bengaluru. The petitioner was apprehending arrest for offences punishable under Sections 14 and 15, which are penalizable under Sections 32 and 38(A) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965.

Factual Matrix and Prosecution Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a raid conducted on April 27, 2024 (as recorded in the prosecution complaint), at approximately 9:30 PM. Acting under the directions of the Excise Joint Commissioner, Bengaluru East, Range-04, excise officers on patrolling duty received credible intelligence regarding the illicit storage of beer for unauthorized commercial sale.

The intelligence pointed to the basement of Building No. 472, New BEL Road, Chikkamaranahalli, Bengaluru. Upon conducting a search of the premises, excise officials discovered and recovered 620 liters of drought beer kept without a valid license.

Since no individual on-site claimed ownership of the seized contraband at the time of the raid, excise officers seized the entire quantity of 620 liters of drought beer under a formal spot panchanama and registered Crime No. 23/2023-24 against unknown persons for violations of Sections 14 and 15 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965.

During the course of the investigation, the excise department issued an official notice to the building owner, Jayaprakash, linking him to the premise where the unauthorized storage occurred.

The cause title captures the background details of the petitioner:

• Jayaprakash: Aged about 60 years, son of Chandrappa, residing at No. 604, 1st ‘E’ Cross, Mathikere, Bengaluru North, Bengaluru – 560 054.

Arguments Advanced on Behalf of the Petitioner

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

• Innocence and Property Ownership Defense: The petitioner submitted that he was entirely innocent and had not committed any offence under the Karnataka Excise Act. The defence highlighted that he is merely the owner of the building, was not present at the spot, and had no knowledge or connection with the illegal storage of drought beer in the basement.
• Reasonable Apprehension of Arrest: The receipt of an official notice from the excise investigating agency created a legitimate and well-founded fear of imminent arrest.
• Non-Capital Offences and Local Roots: The offences alleged under Sections 32 and 38(A) of the Karnataka Excise Act are triable by a Magistrate and do not carry penalties of death or life imprisonment. The petitioner is a 60-year-old permanent resident of Mathikere, Bengaluru, with no prior criminal antecedents.
• Undertaking: The applicant assured the court of his full cooperation with the investigating agency, readiness to submit to all court-imposed conditions, and willingness to furnish solvent sureties.

Objections Raised by the Prosecution

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

• Prima Facie Case and Excise Violations: The prosecution submitted that case records and the recovery of a massive quantity (620 liters) of drought beer from the basement of the petitioner’s building established a strong prima facie link against him.
• Apprehension of Interference: The prosecution expressed concern that if enlarged on pre-arrest bail, the building owner might tamper with evidence, influence witnesses, or fail to cooperate with the ongoing excise investigation.

Judicial Findings and Detailed Legal Reasoning

The Sessions Court evaluated the complaint, seizure records, building ownership details, and rival submissions to determine Point No. 1: whether the petitioner made out a case for pre-arrest protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

1. Recovery of Physical Contraband and Status of Investigation

Judge A.V. Patil observed that the entire subject matter of the crime—620 liters of drought beer—had already been recovered and seized by the excise authorities under a formal spot panchanama in the presence of independent panchas. The court held that because the physical contraband was already secured in state custody, the primary phase 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 32 and 38(A) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, are triable by a Magistrate and do not attract penalties of death or life imprisonment. The court noted that while excise offences are cognizable and non-bailable, allowing the police to arrest the building owner without establishing direct mens rea or possession during trial was unnecessary when safeguards could be imposed.

3. Apprehension of Arrest and Conditional Protection

Recognizing that the issuance of an official investigation notice to the property owner established a concrete apprehension of arrest, the court held that 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. 23/2023-24 of the respondent Police for offences punishable under Sections 32 and 38(A) 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 into the charges against the petitioner.