The LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge in Bengaluru has granted anticipatory bail to 22-year-old Sumantha G.J., who was accused of illegally possessing and selling liquor. The court, presided over by Sri Narashimsa M.V., delivered the order on April 15, 2024, emphasizing that the nature of the offences and the progress of the investigation justified the protection of the petitioner’s liberty under specific legal safeguards.

The petitioner, a resident of Gudavi in Shivamogga, sought protection from arrest in connection with Crime Number 60/2023-24 registered by the Excise Jnanabharathi Range. The case involves alleged violations of Section 14, Section 15, and Section 32(1) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965.

Details of the Excise Raid and Prosecution Case

According to the first information report, the incident occurred on March 29, 2024, at approximately 7:30 a.m. The complainant, an excise official on patrolling duty, received credible information regarding a person selling liquor illegally near Gangondanahalli Main Road within the Jnanabharathi police limits.

The excise team reached the spot and reportedly found Sumantha G.J. engaging in business with the public. Upon searching a plastic bag in his possession, the officials discovered various brands of liquor totaling 24.210 liters, valued at approximately 11,647 rupees. The authorities seized the contraband and issued a notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which requires a person to appear before the investigating officer instead of being immediately arrested.

Arguments for Anticipatory Bail

The advocate representing Sumantha G.J. argued that the allegations were entirely fabricated and concocted for statistical purposes. The defense contended that the complaint failed to disclose the source of the information or the specific names of the independent witnesses (panchas) present during the raid. It was further argued that if Sumantha had indeed been caught selling liquor to the public, the police would have arrested him on the spot and recorded statements from the alleged buyers.

The petitioner maintained that he is a law-abiding citizen and was willing to cooperate fully with the investigation. He approached the court for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, citing a reasonable apprehension that the investigating officer might resort to a formal arrest despite the issuance of the initial appearance notice.

Prosecution Cites Potential for Absconding

The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application, reiterating the facts presented in the excise report. The prosecution argued that the offences under the Karnataka Excise Act are serious and detrimental to society. The state expressed concern that if the petitioner were granted anticipatory bail, he might flee the jurisdiction of the court, threaten potential witnesses, or destroy evidence related to the source of the illicit liquor.

Judicial Reasoning and Observations

In evaluating the case, Judge Narashimsa M.V. noted that while most sections of the Karnataka Excise Act cited are bailable, Section 32(1) is non-bailable, which justified the petitioner’s fear of arrest. However, the court highlighted a critical procedural fact: at the time of the raid, the petitioner was already taken into custody and subsequently released after signing a self-bond and receiving a notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The court observed that the investigation had already made substantial progress, and the seized liquor was in the possession of the authorities. The judge emphasized that the offences alleged are not punishable by death or life imprisonment. The court held that while the source of the liquor remained a factor for further investigation, the need for custodial interrogation did not outweigh the principle of personal liberty, provided that stringent conditions were met.

Conditions for Enlargement on Bail

The court allowed the petition and directed that in the event of his arrest, Sumantha G.J. must be released on bail upon executing a personal bond for 50,000 rupees with one surety. The court imposed the following mandatory conditions:

The petitioner is strictly prohibited from tampering with prosecution witnesses or hampering the investigation process in any manner. He is restricted from leaving the jurisdiction of the trial court without prior permission. Most importantly, the court ordered Sumantha G.J. to appear before the investigating officer on or before May 2, 2024, to cooperate with all aspects of the ongoing probe. The ruling reinforces the legal standard that the power of arrest should be exercised judiciously, especially when the accused is willing to submit to the investigative process.