In a significant legal development amid the heightened vigilance of the parliamentary election season, a Bengaluru City Civil and Sessions Court has granted anticipatory bail to Sridhar C.J. The petitioner was facing potential arrest following an Excise Department raid that resulted in the seizure of over 22 liters of illicitly stored liquor. The order was delivered on April 18, 2024, by Sri Hareesha A., the XXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, who was also holding concurrent charge of the LXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Court.
The case, registered as Crime Number 67/2023-24/3803IE/380307, involves alleged violations of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965. Specifically, the petitioner was accused under Sections 14, 15, 32, and 38(A) of the Act, which govern the illegal possession, storage, and sale of excisable articles without a valid license or permit.
The Prosecution Case and the Election Backdrop
The legal proceedings originated from a raid conducted on March 20, 2024. According to the prosecution, the Excise Department’s Kengeri Range was conducting intensive patrol duties to enforce the Model Code of Conduct during the Parliamentary Elections. Acting on credible intelligence regarding the illicit storage of alcohol, the complainant and witnesses raided a provision store located at 9th Cross, Kengeri Sub Town.
During the search, officers discovered a variety of whiskey brands clandestinely stored within the premises. The seizure included 25 tetra packets (90 ml) of Original Choice Delux, 13 tetra packets (90 ml) and 8 tetra packets (180 ml) of other whiskey brands, 6 tetra packets (180 ml) of Highwads Panch Fine Whiskey, and 5 tetra packets (180 ml) of Old Towrin Whiskey. The total volume of the seized contraband amounted to 22.680 liters.
The prosecution alleged that the proprietor of the store admitted to storing the liquor with the specific intent of selling it at inflated prices to take advantage of the restricted supply during the election period. Following the seizure, a formal mahazar (spot report) was drawn up, and an FIR was registered naming Sridhar C.J. as an absconding accused.
Arguments for Pre-Arrest Bail
The petitioner, Sridhar C.J., represented by Advocate Sri E.L. Lokesh, moved the court under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This section provides the legal framework for “anticipatory bail,” allowing an individual to seek protection from arrest if they have a reasonable apprehension of being taken into custody for a non-bailable offense.
The defense argued that the petitioner had been falsely implicated and that there was no prima facie material to link him to the commission of the alleged offenses. A key point of contention was the procedural nature of the FIR; the defense highlighted that the case was registered solely based on a seizure mahazar rather than a formal complaint. Furthermore, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the prosecution had failed to produce any documentation proving that the provision store in question was actually owned or managed by Sridhar C.J.
The defense also emphasized that while the charges are non-bailable, they do not carry the extreme penalties of death or life imprisonment. The maximum punishment for these offenses under the Karnataka Excise Act is seven years of imprisonment, making custodial interrogation unnecessary at this stage.
The Court’s Findings and Reasoning
Judge Hareesha A. observed that the validity of the seizure mahazar and the testimony of the panch witnesses are matters to be tested during the trial. The court noted the absence of concrete ownership documents connecting the petitioner to the shop at this preliminary stage.
The court further applied the principle that the primary purpose of bail is to ensure the accused’s presence during the trial while protecting their personal liberty. Since the offenses are not punishable by death or life imprisonment, the court found that the petitioner’s apprehension of arrest was reasonable and that his liberty should be secured through conditional bail.
Final Order and Conditions of Release
The court allowed the petition and directed that in the event of arrest, the respondent police must release Sridhar C.J. on bail. The court imposed a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with a surety of a like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
To balance the interests of the investigation with the petitioner’s liberty, the court set the following conditions:
- The petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of the order.
- The petitioner is strictly prohibited from threatening or tampering with prosecution witnesses, either directly or indirectly.
- The petitioner must not commit similar offenses while out on bail.
- The petitioner must fully cooperate with the ongoing investigation.
Failure to comply with these terms could lead to the cancellation of the bail. This ruling underscores the judiciary’s role in scrutinizing procedural evidence and property links before allowing the deprivation of liberty, especially during high-stakes periods like national elections.