The LXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-64), Sri A.V. Patil, B.Com., LL.B., allowed the anticipatory bail application filed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2832/2024 on April 2, 2024. The judicial order extended pre-arrest bail protection to 55-year-old Nagaraj N. in connection with Crime No. 42/2023-24 registered by the Excise Inspector, Basaveshwar Nagar Range, BUD-03, Bengaluru. The petitioner faced apprehension of arrest for alleged offences punishable under Sections 11, 12, 14, 15, 32(1), 34, and 38(A) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965.

Factual Matrix and Prosecution Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from an excise raid conducted on January 24, 2024. According to the prosecution records, the complainant Excise Inspector was on patrolling duty when he received credible intelligence indicating that illicit liquor was being stored for unauthorized sale at House No. 49, 1st Cross, Kamala Nagar, Bengaluru.

Acting on the information, the excise team, accompanied by staff and independent mahazar witnesses, conducted a raid at the specified premises. During the search, officers recovered a bag containing 63 tetra packets of Haywards Punch whisky (90 ml each), totaling 5.670 liters of liquor. The seizure was executed under a spot mahazar for alleged statutory violations of Sections 11, 12, 14, and 15, which are punishable under Sections 32 and 38(A) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965. Consequently, an FIR was registered naming Nagaraj N. as Accused No. 1.

The details of the petitioner as per court records are:

• Nagaraj N. (Petitioner / Accused No. 1): Aged about 55 years, son of Narasimhaiah, residing at No. 49, 1st Cross, 1st Main, Kamalanagar, Bengaluru – 560 079.

Submissions Advanced on Behalf of the Petitioner

Appearing on behalf of the applicant, learned advocate Sri Ramesh Gogi presented several grounds seeking pre-arrest protection under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.):

• Physical Disability and Innocence: The petitioner maintained that he was entirely innocent of the alleged liquor trade and had been falsely implicated. The defense highlighted that the applicant is blind, disabled, and unable to maintain himself independently.
• Completion of Seizure: Counsel emphasized that the excise authorities had already seized the entire quantity of 5.670 liters of liquor under a spot mahazar, meaning the material physical evidence was already in state custody.
• Non-Capital Offences: The alleged statutory infractions under the Karnataka Excise Act do not carry the death penalty or life imprisonment and are triable by a Magistrate of the First Class.
• Local Roots and Undertaking: The applicant is a permanent resident of Kamala Nagar, Bengaluru, with no prior criminal antecedents. He promised to abide by all court-imposed conditions, appear before the investigating officer, and offer solvent sureties.

Prosecution Objections and State Arguments

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, filing a formal statement of objections detailing the gravity of the excise offence:

• Prima Facie Material: The prosecution submitted that material collected during the raid established that the accused engaged in illegal storage and sale of liquor without a valid license.
• Economic Offence: The state argued that unauthorized liquor distribution constitutes an economic offence causing loss to state revenue, warranting custodial interrogation.
• Apprehension of Non-Cooperation and Flight: The prosecution expressed concern that if enlarged on pre-arrest bail, the petitioner might tamper with prosecution witnesses, obstruct further investigation, or fail to co-operate with the excise authorities.

Judicial Findings and Detailed Legal Reasoning

The Sessions Court evaluated the FIR, spot mahazar, quantity of contraband seized, physical condition of the applicant, and rival submissions to determine whether the petitioner made out sufficient grounds for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

1. Seizure of Contraband and Status of Investigation

Judge A.V. Patil observed that the subject matter of the crime—specifically 63 tetra packets totaling 5.670 liters of liquor—had already been recovered and seized by the excise department under a formal spot panchanama. The court held that because the physical contraband was already secured, the major portion of the investigation was complete.

2. Nature of Penalties and Physical Disability

The court noted that the offences alleged under Sections 32 and 38(A) of the Karnataka Excise Act do not carry mandatory death or life imprisonment sentences and are triable by a Magistrate. Taking note of the applicant’s physical disability and permanent residential standing in Bengaluru without prior criminal antecedents, the court held that physical custodial detention was unwarranted.

3. Rejection of State’s Economic Offence Contention

Addressing the Public Prosecutor’s argument regarding economic offences, the court held that given the small quantity of liquor recovered and the completion of physical seizure, state interests could be fully safeguarded by imposing strict reporting and cooperation conditions rather than pre-trial incarceration.

It remains a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that an order deciding an anticipatory bail application is procedural in nature and does not constitute an expression on the ultimate guilt or innocence of the accused, which remains subject to trial.

Final Pre-Arrest Bail Order and Conditions Imposed

Answering the point for consideration in the affirmative, the LXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge Sri A.V. Patil allowed the petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and granted anticipatory bail to Nagaraj N. in Crime No. 42/2023-24 of Basaveshwar Nagar Excise Range.

The court directed that in the event of his arrest by the Investigating Officer, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon executing a personal bond for Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety for the likesum, subject to the following conditions:

• The petitioner shall appear before the respondent police within 20 days from the date of the order.
• The petitioner shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses in any manner.
• The petitioner shall appear before the trial court during trial and co-operate for the disposal of the case.
• The petitioner shall not commit offences similar to the one alleged against him.
• The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for investigation.
• The petitioner shall furnish an attested copy of his Aadhaar card and proof of present residential address to the Investigating Officer.