Bengaluru, April 8, 2024: In a significant development, the LXII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH.63), has granted anticipatory bail to 57-year-old Balu M, an ex-serviceman, in a case registered under the Karnataka Excise Act. The order, passed by Judge Sri. A. Earanna, comes in response to a petition filed under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) by the petitioner, who was apprehending arrest by the Excise Police.
The case, registered as Crime No. 30/2023-24/3609/E/360909 by the Excise P S Subramanyanagar Range Police, involves offences punishable under Sections 11 (Transport of intoxicant), 15 (Sale of excisable articles without licence prohibited), 32 (Penalty for illegal import, etc.), and 38(A) (Penalty for allowing premises, etc, to be used for the purpose of committing an offence under this Act) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965.
The Allegations and Apprehension of Arrest
According to the prosecution’s case, the incident occurred during patrolling activities near the Mahalakshmi Layout Assembly Constituency, which were intensified due to the protocol for the Lok Sabha Elections 2024. The police received credible information regarding a person illegally transporting liquor on a grey Honda Activa two-wheeler. Upon intercepting the vehicle, the police allegedly found 6.00 litres of liquor, specifically seven bottles of Black and White Whiskey and one bottle of Amrit Amalam Whiskey, each of 750 ml, inside a white bag. The prosecution contended that the liquor, permissible only for “defence purpose,” was being transported with the intention to sell, leading to the registration of the case.
The petitioner, Balu M, a resident of Dayananda Nagar, Srirampuram, approached the Sessions Court seeking protection against his imminent arrest. He argued through his counsel, Aravind Kumar A, that he was innocent, falsely implicated, and had no previous bad antecedents. Crucially, he submitted that he is an ex-serviceman with a valid identity card (No. KRT-06-25340) and that the seized bottles were purchased from the Canteen Stores Department (CSD). The petitioner further asserted that as an ex-serviceman, he was entitled to advance bottles under the CSD’s ‘roll over policy,’ and was ready to cooperate with the investigation and abide by all court-imposed conditions.
Court’s Observation and Reasoning
The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea, arguing that releasing the petitioner could lead to him threatening witnesses, destroying evidence, or committing similar offences.
After hearing arguments from both sides and perusing the record, the court focused on the nature of the offences and the petitioner’s specific defence. The court noted the petitioner’s claim of being an ex-serviceman and that the liquor was purchased from CSD, a fact that warrants further investigation.
A key factor considered by the court was that the offences alleged are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and are triable by a Magistrate. The court concluded that the apprehension raised by the prosecution—that the petitioner might tamper with evidence or flee from justice—could be effectively safeguarded by imposing suitable conditions.
The court, therefore, found merit in the petitioner’s plea, answering Point No. 1 (Whether the petitioner has made out a ground to enlarge him on anticipatory bail) in the affirmative.
Conditions for Bail
Granting the anticipatory bail petition, the court directed the respondent police to release Balu M in the event of his arrest in the said crime, subject to the execution of a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned 32nd ACMM, Bengaluru.
The grant of bail was subject to the following stringent conditions:
- The petitioner shall join the investigation and cooperate with the Investigating Officer (I.O.) for the investigation.
- The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence or influence the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly in any manner.
- The petitioner shall not indulge in offences of a like nature.
- In case of any violation of the above conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail.
This judicial decision underscores the principle that anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is a safeguard against harassment and unjustified detention, particularly when the accused presents a plausible defence and the alleged offences are not of the most grievous nature, allowing the accused to participate in the investigation without the stigma of pre-trial incarceration. The ex-serviceman is now protected from arrest, though the investigation into the alleged illegal transport of CSD-purchased liquor will continue.