1
Crl.Misc.No.3191/2024
KABC010089992024
IN THE COURT OF THE XXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH 9) AND HOLDING
CONCURRENT CHARGE OF
LXIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH 70)
BANGALORE CITY
Dated this the 18th day of April, 2024
PRESENT
Sri. Hareesha A., B.A.,LL.B,
XXVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH 9)
and also holding concurrent charge of the court of
69th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH 70).
Crl.Misc.No.3191/2024
Petitioner:
Sridhar C.J s/o Jayanna,
aged about 32 years,
r/at No. 369, 9th cross,
Suncity, Kengeri Upanagar,
Kengeri, Bengaluru 560 060
(By Sri.E.L.Lokesh, Advocate)
­V/S­
Respondent :
State of Karnataka by
Excise Department,
Kengeri Range, B`lore
2
Crl.Misc.No.3191/2024
(Represented by Public
Prosecutor)
ORDER ON BAIL PETITION FILED
U/SEC. 438 OF CR.P.C.
The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this court
under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)
citing a reasonable apprehension of imminent arrest by the
respondent police, in connection with Crime No. 67/2023­
24/3803IE/380307 wherein the petitioner stands as an accused
of offences punishable
u/sec.

14,15,32, 38(A) of Karnataka
Excise Act, 1965.
2. The petitioner, invoking the plea of false implication
and citing the absence of prima facie material supporting the
commission of offenses under Section
14,15,32, 38(A) of
Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 , expresses genuine apprehension
regarding
imminent
arrest
by
the
respondent
police.

Consequently, the petitioner seeks relief in the form of pre­
arrest bail to secure his liberty.
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has filed
3
Crl.Misc.No.3191/2024
objection contending that, there exists prima­facie material on
record indicating that the petitioner has allegedly committed
the offences in question, hence sought to dismiss the petition.
4. I have heard the argument an perused the petition
averments. The point that would arise for my determination
is:
1. Whether the petitioner has made out any
grounds to enlarge him on bail u/sec. 438 of
Cr.P.C.?
2. What order?
5. My answer is in the Affirmative for the following;
REASONS
6.

POINT NO.1; On 20.3.2024 at about 8.30 pm the
complainant,
while
conducting
patrol
duty
within
the
jurisdiction of Kengeri Range, amidst the backdrop of the
Parliamentary Election, had received credible intelligence
regarding the illicit storage of liquor at a Provision Store
situated at 9th Cross, Kengeri Sub Town, Bengaluru South
Taluk. Acting upon this information deemed reliable, the
4
Crl.Misc.No.3191/2024
complainant, accompanied by witnesses, undertook a raid of the
said
premises.

Subsequent
to
a
thorough
search,
the
complainant discovered and seized various quantities of liquor,
specifically 25 tetra packets of 90 ml of Original Choice Delux,
13 tetra packets of 90 ml, 8 tetra packets of 180 ml, and 6 tetra
packets of Highwads Panch Fine Whiskey (180 ml), along with
5 tetra packets of 180 ml of Old Towrin Whiskey, totaling
22.680 liters, all clandestinely stored within the provision store
without the requisite license or permit. Upon interrogation, the
proprietor of the establishment purportedly admitted to the
storage of the aforementioned liquor with the intention of
selling it at inflated prices, exploiting the prevailing code of
conduct enforced in view of Parliamentary Elections. The
complainant duly seized the contraband in the presence of the
aforementioned witnesses and subsequently documented the
seizure through a formal mahazar, which was then submitted
to the Station House Officer (SHO). An FIR was registered by
the complainant, detailing the alleged offenses in accordance
with the aforementioned circumstances.

5
Crl.Misc.No.3191/2024
7.

As
aptly
contended
by
the
learned
counsel
representing the petitioner, it is notable that no formal
complaint was lodged by the complainant to
register FIR.

Instead, the FIR was registered solely on the basis of the
seizure mahazar, the authenticity of which necessitates
validation through testimony from the panch witnesses during
the trial proceedings. Furthermore, the prosecution has failed
to furnish any documentation verifying the ownership of the
aforementioned provision store by the petitioner. Moreover, in
the
FIR
the
petitioner
shown
an
absconding
accused.

Additionally, it is pertinent to acknowledge that the alleged
offences, while serious, are not punishable by death or life
imprisonment, but rather carry a maximum penalty of 7 years’
imprisonment. Despite the non­bailable nature of the offences,
the apprehension of the petitioner seems unwarranted.
Therefore, it is my considered opinion that it would be just and
equitable to grant bail to the petitioner, albeit subject to
stringent conditions. To address the prosecution’s concerns
regarding the potential flight risk, stringent conditions can be
6
Crl.Misc.No.3191/2024
imposed as a measure to mitigate such apprehensions.
Accordingly the Point No.1 is answered in the affirmative.
8. Point No.2: By considering the above over all reasons
this court proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
The petition filed u/sec. 438 of Cr.P.C. by the
Petitioner is hereby allowed.
In the event of arrest of petitioner, in connection
with Cr. No. 67/2023­24/3803IE/380307 for the offences
punishable u/sec. 14,15,32, 38(A) of Karnataka Excise
Act, 1965 the respondent police hereby directed to release
him on bail, on obtaining his personal bond for
Rs.1,00,000/­
with
a surety
for the likesum
to the
satisfaction of the Investigating officer, subject to the
following conditions.
1. The petitioner shall appear before the I.O. within 15
days from the date of this order.
2. The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the
Prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
3. The petitioner shall not commit similar offence.

7
Crl.Misc.No.3191/2024
4. The petitioner shall cooperate for investigation.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade ­ I, transcript thereof is
corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open court on
this the 18th day of April, 2024)
(Hareesha A.)
XXVII Addl. CC & SJ
holding c/c of 69th Addl. City Civil and
Sessions Judge,Bangalore.