In an order delivered by the Court of the LXIV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-65), presided over by Smt. Kalpana M.S., B.Sc., LL.M., PGD-CLCF, anticipatory bail was granted to Nagaraj Hiremath in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 3054/2024. The judicial order dated April 6, 2024, extended pre-arrest bail protection to the petitioner in connection with Crime No. 197/2024, registered by the Department of Excise, Jakkur Range, Bengaluru. The petitioner faced apprehension of arrest for alleged offences punishable under Sections 11, 14, 15, 32(1), and 40 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, pending before the 7th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM), Bengaluru.

Factual Background and Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a raid conducted by officials of the Excise Department, Jakkur Range, Bengaluru. According to the prosecution’s case, the Inspector of Excise received credible intelligence indicating that Nagaraj Hiremath was unauthorizedly possessing and transporting commercial quantities of liquor. Acting on this information, excise officials conducted a search operation near Srinivasapura, Yelahanka Kogilu towards Kannur.

During the search, officials intercepted a bag allegedly belonging to the petitioner. The search resulted in the recovery and seizure of 10 bottles of 750 ml Black Dog Whisky (totaling 7.5 liters) alongside an additional 10 bottles of 750 ml Black Dog White Whisky (totaling 7.5 liters), bringing the total seized volume of illicitly possessed liquor to 15 liters. The contraband was seized under a formal spot mahazar, and an FIR was registered against Nagaraj Hiremath. Subsequently, the excise investigating officer issued a statutory notice directing the petitioner to appear for questioning, prompting his application for pre-arrest bail.

The details of the petitioner as per court records are:

• Nagaraj Hiremath (Petitioner): Aged about 41 years, son of Gavi Siddayya H., residing at No. 1029, 4th Block, Janapriya Apartment, Allalasandra, Yelahanka, Bengaluru – 560 065.

Defense Submissions and Legal Precedents

Appearing on behalf of the applicant, learned advocate Sri Ravikumar P.R. submitted that the petitioner was entirely innocent of the alleged offences, held no connection with the seized contraband, and had been falsely implicated by the excise authorities. The defense highlighted that the petitioner had a verified residential address in Yelahanka, held no prior criminal antecedents, and faced a genuine, well-founded apprehension of imminent arrest.

To substantiate the maintainability of pre-arrest bail under the Karnataka Excise Act, counsel for the petitioner relied on several authoritative precedents of the High Court of Karnataka, including (2016) 03 KAL C.C. 0226, Crl.P. No. 5454/2023, Crl.P. No. 8469/2017, Crl.P. No. 8444/2019, Crl.P. No. 3664/2014, Crl.P. No. 102321/2018, and Crl.P. No. 10336/2011. Counsel argued that even though Section 32(1) of the Karnataka Excise Act constitutes a cognizable offence, the High Court of Karnataka has consistently affirmed the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in similar excise infractions.

Prosecution Objections and State Arguments

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, filing a formal statement of objections along with an investigation report from the Inspector of Excise. The state argued that the unauthorized possession of 15 liters of premium whisky demonstrated commercial intent to evade state excise duties.

The prosecution expressed concern that if enlarged on pre-arrest bail, the petitioner might evade investigation, fail to appear before the trial court, or repeat similar excise offences, thereby causing revenue loss to the state exchequer.

Judicial Findings and Legal Reasoning

Upon evaluating the FIR, seizure mahazar, notice documents, and rival legal arguments, Judge Kalpana M.S. determined whether the petitioner established sufficient grounds for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court observed that the alleged offences under Sections 11, 14, 15, 32(1), and 40 of the Karnataka Excise Act are triable by a Magistrate and do not carry mandatory sentences of death or life imprisonment.

The court invoked the foundational constitutional doctrine reiterated by the Supreme Court of India in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand [(1977) AIR SC 2447] that “Bail is the rule and jail is an exception,” which safeguards personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the court relied on the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI [(2022) 10 SCC 51] regarding pre-trial detention principles in non-capital offences.

Noting that the petitioner had established fixed residential roots in Bengaluru and possessed no criminal antecedents, the court held that the risk of absconding was minimal. The court concluded that physical custodial detention was unnecessary to complete the investigation, as the contraband had already been seized, and the prosecution’s interests could be safeguarded by imposing strict reporting conditions.

Final Pre-Arrest Bail Order and Conditions Imposed

Answering the point for consideration in the affirmative, the LXIV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge allowed the petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and granted anticipatory bail to Nagaraj Hiremath in Crime No. 197/2024 of the Department of Excise, Jakkur Range, Bengaluru.

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

• The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of the order and cooperate with the investigation as and when called upon.
• The petitioner shall mark his attendance at the respondent Excise Office on the 1st and 3rd Sunday of every month between 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM until the conclusion of the investigation.
• The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing facts to the police or court.
• The petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of India without prior permission of the trial court.
• The petitioner shall not involve himself in any criminal activities.
• The petitioner and his surety shall intimate any change in their residential address to the trial court immediately without fail.