Licensed Liquor Dealer Secures Pre-Arrest Bail Over Alleged Unaccounted Stock Seizure: The LXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH 70) in Bengaluru, on January 24, 2023, granted anticipatory bail to Anand N, a CL-2 (retail vend of Indian made foreign liquor in sealed bottles) license holder, who was facing charges under various sections of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965. The petitioner, identified as Accused No. 3 in the case, had approached the court seeking pre-arrest protection under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).
The petitioner, Anand N, is the licensee of Renuka Wines, located in Kalyananagara, Nagarbhavi, and was booked by the Inspector of Excise, Vijayanagar Range-19, in Crime No. 34/2022-23.
The Case and Allegations
The case was registered on December 14, 2022, following a joint inspection conducted by Excise Department officials, including the Joint Commissioner (EIB), Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Deputy Superintendent of Excise, and the Inspector of Excise.
The prosecution’s case rests on the credible information that the accused was allegedly stocking and attempting to sell liquor without valid documents or license in the premises located above Sri. Yellamma Condiments in Shakti Garden, Kalyananagara. During the spot inspection, the officials reported finding 12.96 Litres of Indian Made Liquor (IML) of different brands and 5.200 Litres of Beer Bottles without proper documentation.
The offences registered against the petitioner were under Sections 14, 15 read with 32(1), 38(A), and 43 of the Karnataka Excise Act. These sections broadly relate to unauthorized storage, sale, possession of liquor, and penalties for illegal import/export/transport, among other violations. The petitioner stated that he had been issued a notice under Section 41A (1) of Cr.P.C. and feared arrest, despite being released on the spot by the Investigating Officer (IO).
Petitioner’s Defense and Ground for Bail
The primary arguments put forth by the petitioner’s counsel, Sri. M.S.G., centered on the fact that Anand N is a duly licensed CL-2 holder and an authorized person to carry out the business of selling liquor. The defense contended that the liquor seized were all licensed liquor, suggesting that the issue was possibly one of documentation or an administrative oversight rather than outright illicit trade.
The petitioner submitted his CL-2 license copy, which was valid as of July 2, 2022, for the address where the raid occurred. He assured the court of his readiness to abide by any conditions imposed, highlighting that a denial of anticipatory bail would jeopardize his day-to-day business operations.
Prosecution’s Opposition
The Learned Public Prosecutor (PP) opposed the bail application, arguing that the investigation was still pending and that releasing the petitioner could lead to the tampering of prosecution witnesses, thus causing a delay in the conclusion of the investigation and the trial. The IO also submitted reports asserting that the accused should not be released as he had allegedly caused a loss to the state exchequer.
Court’s Reasoning and Conclusion
The presiding Judge, Sri. Rajesh Karnam.K, considered the materials on record, including the petitioner’s status as a licensed vendor and the stage of the investigation.
1. Licensed Status and Bail:
The Court gave significant weight to the fact that the petitioner is a CL-2 license holder. The order observed that the petitioner is a licensed shop owner of liquor, and his being withheld from conditional bail would “Jeopadise his day to day business,” a circumstance that “seems reasonable” to consider for bail.
2. Nature of Offenses:
Crucially, the Court noted that the alleged offenses under the Karnataka Excise Act are not punishable with imprisonment for life or death, a factor that generally favours the grant of bail, especially anticipatory bail, where the investigation is still progressing.
3. IO’s Action:
The Court’s decision was significantly influenced by the fact that the Investigating Officer had released the petitioner on a personal bond before the IO himself at the time of the incident. This action implied that the IO did not consider the petitioner’s immediate arrest essential at that moment.
Considering these circumstances, the Court held that the petitioner had made a strong case for conditional anticipatory bail.
Conditional Grant of Anticipatory Bail
The petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. was allowed. In the event of his arrest, the respondent police were directed to release Anand N. The bail was made subject to several stringent conditions:
- Personal Bond and Sureties: The petitioner must execute a personal bond for Rs. 50,000/- and provide a self-surety of their own property/close relative for the like sum, along with a cash surety of Rs. 5,000/-.
- Cooperation with IO: The petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from the date of the order’s receipt.
- No Tampering or Indulging in Offenses: The petitioner is barred from threatening prosecution witnesses or indulging in any new offenses.
- Regular Court Appearance: He must appear before the trial court regularly on all hearing dates.
- Trial Court Application: He is directed to approach the trial court for regular bail within one month.
- Jurisdiction Restriction: He shall not leave the court’s jurisdiction without prior permission.
This judgment provides temporary relief to the CL-2 licensee, safeguarding his liberty while ensuring the investigation and subsequent trial proceed without hindrance. It also highlights the court’s prerogative to grant pre-arrest bail in cases where the accused holds a valid license and the alleged offenses do not carry the maximum penalties.