The LXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge in Bengaluru has granted anticipatory bail to 36-year-old Shiva Shekar, who was accused of illegal storage and sale of liquor. The court, presided over by Shri Hemanth Kumar C.R., ruled in favor of the petitioner on April 5, 2024, noting that the offences alleged were not punishable by death or life imprisonment and that the petitioner’s cooperation with the investigation could be secured through stringent conditions.

The petitioner, Shiva Shekar, a resident of Kamakshipalya and a permanent resident of Halemirle Village in Mysore District, sought protection from arrest in connection with FIR No. 69/2023-24. The case was registered by the Inspector of Excise, Basaveshwaranagara Range, for offences punishable under Section 13(1)(A), Section 14, Section 15, and Section 32(1) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965.

Details of the Excise Raid and Allegations

The criminal proceedings began on March 21, 2024, when excise officials, who were on election-related beat duty, received credible information regarding the illegal storage and sale of contraband liquor. Acting on this tip, the officials conducted a raid at a location opposite Sai Enterprises in Vrushabhavathi Nagara, Kamakshipalya.

During the search, the authorities reportedly discovered 45 pouches of Hayward Whisky, each being a 90 ml tetra pack. The total volume of the seized liquor amounted to 4.050 liters. The excise department registered a suo-moto case against the culprits and subsequently issued a notice under Section 41A(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioner apprehended arrest after the police began making efforts to link him to the seizure.

Defense Arguments of Shiva Shekar

The advocate representing Shiva Shekar argued that the petitioner is an innocent citizen who was falsely implicated in the case. The defense contended that on the day of the incident, Shiva Shekar was simply standing near his house waiting for relatives when the police arrived and collected his information. It was argued that the complaint did not disclose any prima facie evidence or specific overt acts attributed to the petitioner.

The defense further highlighted the petitioner’s personal circumstances, stating that he is a daily wage laborer (coolie) and the sole breadwinner for his family, which includes aged parents and school-going children. The advocate maintained that Shiva Shekar has deep roots in the society and no criminal background, and that his arrest would cause untold hardship and mental agony to his dependents.

Prosecution Opposes Bail Plea

The Public Prosecutor representing the State of Karnataka filed a strong objection to the bail petition. The prosecution argued that the averments in the complaint prima facie demonstrated the petitioner’s involvement in the illegal trade of liquor. It was contended that since the investigation was still in its preliminary stages, granting anticipatory bail could allow the petitioner to threaten witnesses, destroy evidence, or abscond to hamper the trial. The prosecution emphasized that the nature of the offence was grievous and required custodial interrogation to uncover the full extent of the illegal operation.

Judicial Observation and Order

After hearing both sides, the court examined the nature of the allegations under the Karnataka Excise Act. The judge observed that the offences alleged against Shiva Shekar are not punishable with death or life imprisonment. Furthermore, the court noted that the guilt of the petitioner is a matter of trial and cannot be conclusively determined while the investigation is ongoing.

The court held that the apprehension of the prosecution regarding the petitioner absconding or tampering with evidence could be effectively addressed by imposing strict conditions. Consequently, the court found sufficient grounds to allow the petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The judge directed the Basaveshwaranagar Range Excise Police to release Shiva Shekar on bail in the event of his arrest, subject to the execution of a personal bond for 50,000 rupees with one surety for the likesum. The court also imposed several mandatory conditions to ensure the integrity of the investigation:

The petitioner must appear before the trial court on all scheduled dates of hearing and cooperate fully with the investigating authorities. He is required to appear before the Investigating Officer whenever called upon for the purpose of the probe. The petitioner is strictly prohibited from tampering with evidence or threatening, inducing, or alluring prosecution witnesses in any manner. Furthermore, the petitioner must not involve himself in any criminal activities and must produce his permanent address proof documents before the court.

The ruling underscores the principle that the liberty of an individual should be protected when the evidence is still being gathered and the alleged offences do not carry the highest penalties under the law.

Would you like me to create a summary of the specific sections of the Karnataka Excise Act mentioned in this order to help explain the legal context further?