In an order passed on April 15, 2024, the LXIV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-65), Smt. Kalpana M.S., B.Sc., LL.M., PGD-CLCF, allowed the anticipatory bail application in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3020/2024. The court granted pre-arrest bail protection to Mohan Ram L in connection with Crime No. 28/2024 registered by the Suddaguntepalya Police Station, Bengaluru. The petitioner was apprehending arrest for offences punishable under Sections 417 (cheating), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Sections 7 and 8 of the Prohibition of Electronic Cigarettes (Production, Manufacture, Import, Export, Transport, Sale, Distribution, Storage and Advertisement) Act, 2019, pending on the file of the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (A.C.M.M.) Court, Bengaluru.

Factual Matrix and Prosecution Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a raid conducted on January 27, 2024, by Police Inspector B.R. Gouda.

According to the prosecution:

• At approximately 10:00 AM on January 27, 2024, the police received credible intelligence that residents from Kerala were storing illegally imported electronic cigarettes at House No. 44, 2nd Floor, 2nd Main Road, KEB Colony, New Guruppanapalya, Bengaluru.
• Despite a nationwide statutory ban on electronic cigarettes, the suspects allegedly imported and stored large consignments for unlawful commercial gain.
• Acting on the tip-off, police conducted a search and seized e-cigarettes valued at approximately ₹3,00,000,000 (₹3 Crores) along with a Samsung mobile phone in the presence of panchas.
• Suddaguntepalya Police registered Crime No. 28/2024 and initiated investigation. During interrogation, co-accused (Accused Nos. 3 and 4) gave voluntary statements naming the petitioner, Mohan Ram L, an Assistant Manager and Location In-Charge at Blue Dart Express Ltd. in Chennai, alleging his involvement in the logistics and transport chain.

Petitioner Background

• Name: Mohan Ram L
• Father’s Name: Linganathan
• Age: Approximately 55 years
• Residential Address: No. 31/4, 2nd Main Road, Thirupathi Nagara, Behind Murugan Temple, Koathur, Tiruvallur, Tamil Nadu
• Employment: Assistant Manager / Location In-Charge (MDW), Blue Dart Express Ltd., No. 8, CMDA Truck Terminal, CWC Warehouse, Ponniamman Medu, Chennai – 600110
• Legal Representation: Sri P. Ravi, Advocate

Arguments Advanced

On Behalf of the Petitioner

• No Name in FIR: The petitioner’s name was not listed in the initial FIR. He was implicated solely based on disclosure statements made by co-accused (Accused Nos. 3 and 4) while in police custody.
• Corporate Employee Status: The petitioner is merely an employee of a courier company (Blue Dart Express Ltd.) and had no knowledge, personal stake, or direct involvement in the illegal import or storage of the seized goods in Bengaluru.
• Ground of Parity: Co-accused persons (Accused Nos. 3 and 4) whose voluntary statements implicated him had already been enlarged on bail.
• Non-Capital Offences: The alleged offences under Sections 417, 420, and 120B IPC and Sections 7 and 8 of the Prohibition of Electronic Cigarettes Act do not carry sentences of death or life imprisonment and are triable by a Magistrate.
• Undertaking: The applicant offered to furnish a local surety, cooperate fully with the investigation, and submit to all court conditions.

On Behalf of the Respondent (State)

• Grave Commercial Contraband: The Public Prosecutor argued that the seizure involved prohibited electronic cigarettes valued at ₹3 Crores, representing a large-scale illegal distribution ring.
• Inter-State Network: Since the petitioner resides and works in Chennai, Tamil Nadu, the prosecution expressed apprehension that he might abscond, evade investigation, or fail to appear for trial in Bengaluru.

Judicial Findings & Legal Reasoning

Evaluating the records, statutory provisions, and precedents, the Sessions Court found the petitioner entitled to pre-arrest bail based on the following grounds:

1. Non-Capital Penalties & Magistrate Jurisdiction: The alleged offences do not carry penalties of death or life imprisonment.
2. Application of Parity & Voluntariness of Disclosures: The petitioner was named solely in the voluntary statements of Accused Nos. 3 and 4, who had already been granted bail. Applying the principle of parity, the petitioner was similarly entitled to protection.
3. Documentary Basis & Custodial Need: Relying on the Supreme Court ruling in Mahdoom Bava v. CBI [(2023) AIR SC 1570], the court noted that where a case relies primarily on documentary, transport, and shipment records, custodial interrogation is generally not warranted.
4. Governing Precedents: The court referenced Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 565], State of Rajasthan v. Balchand [(1977) AIR SC 2447] (“Bail is a rule and jail is an exception”), and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI [(2022) Live Law (SC) 577].
5. Mitigating Flight Risk: Acknowledging that the petitioner resides in Chennai, the court held that prosecution concerns could be adequately addressed by requiring him to furnish at least one local surety from Bengaluru.

Final Court Order & Imposed Conditions

The petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was allowed. In the event of his arrest in Crime No. 28/2024, the Suddaguntepalya Police were directed to release Mohan Ram L on bail upon executing a personal bond of ₹50,000/- with two sureties for the likesum, out of which one MUST be a local surety, subject to the following terms:

1. Reporting to IO: The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of the order and cooperate with the investigation as and when required.
2. Periodic Attendance: He shall mark his attendance at the Suddaguntepalya Police Station on the 1st and 3rd Sunday of every month between 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM until completion of the investigation or for 3 months, whichever is earlier.
3. Address & ID Proof: He shall furnish official residential address proof for himself and his sureties at the time of executing bonds, and immediately notify the trial court of any address changes.
4. No Witness Tampering: He shall not directly or indirectly induce, threaten, or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade them from disclosing facts to the police or court.
5. Territorial Limits: He shall not leave the jurisdiction of India without prior permission of the trial court.
6. No Criminal Activity: He shall not involve himself in any criminal activities.

Violation of any of these conditions will entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail.