IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A.PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION No.7260/2018 BETWEEN:
SRI. T.CHANDRASHEKAR @ TAM TAM CHANDRASHEKAR, S/O LAKSHMANA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.403, ULTIMATE DREAMS APARTMENTS, BALAMURUGAN TEMPLE STREET, NEW THIPPASANDRA, BANGALORE – 560 075.
ALSO AT: SRI.T.CHANDRASHEKAR @ TAM TAM CHANDRASHEKAR, S/O LAKSHMANA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, NO.402, LA ROYAL MANNER APARTMENT, 11TH CROSS, 11TH MAIN ROAD, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 075.
(BY SRI B.V.DAYANANDA, ADV.,) AND:
STATE BY JEEVANBHIMANAGAR POLICE, K.R.PURAM SUB DIVISION, …PETITIONER REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX/BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001.
(BY SRI M.DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP) …RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.26/2017-18/0308/E/30808 OF K.R.PURAM SUB – DIVISION, BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 13(1)(a), 14, 32(1), 38(A) OF KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDER, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., to enlarge him on anticipatory bail in Cr.No.26/2017- 18/0308/E/30808 of Jeevanbeema Nagar Police Station, for the offence punishable under Sectioins.13(1)(a), 14, 32(1), 38(A) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965.
2. The gist of the complaint is that on 15/09/2017, respondent-police on a credible information that the accused/petitioner and Vathalgor John Wilson are transporting 6.34 crore rupees gold i.e. 20120 grams through EK.564 Emirates Flight from Dubai to Bengaluru, searched the said persons and seized the said gold from their possession. They also conducted a raid in the house of petitioner/accused on 24/10/2017 and found 44,324 liters of foreign liquor, 3.00 liters of liquor which is meant for supplying to the military staff, 6.00 liters of wine, 0.750 liters of Indian wine and 2.640 liters of beer. The same were seized under mahazar and a case has been registered against accused persons.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP appearing for the respondent- State.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused that the son of the petitioner/accused filed Habeas Corpus Petitions in W.P.No.61/2017 and W.P.No.160/2017. This Court allowed the said petitions on 24/01/2018 and the petitioner/accused was directed to be released from the custody. He further submitted that in view of the said fact, the only question remains that the seizure of liquor from the possession of the accused. Though the said seizure has been done on 24/10/2017, there is a delay in filing the complaint. He further submitted that the alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. He further submitted that the habeas corpus petitions are allowed and the petitioner/accused is directed to be released on bail by order dated 24/01/2018. Subsequently, the house of the petitioner/accused was raided and a false case has been registered. He further submitted that petitioner/accused is ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by the Court and is ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP, appearing for the respondent-State vehemently argued and submitted that the petitioner is involved in a serious offence of transportation of gold from one nation to another nation without there being any licence or permit. He further submitted that when a search has been made, huge quantity of foreign liquor and other liquors have been found in the house of the accused. He further submitted that petitioner/accused person is involving in such criminal activities, he is not entitled to be released on bail. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously examined the contents of the complaint and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
7. As could be seen from the records, serious allegations are made as against the petitioner/accused with regard to transportation of gold and possession of huge quantity of liquor in the house. In the circumstances, it is not a fit case to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. If the petitioner/accused surrenders before the Court below and apply for regular bail, the same may be considered expeditiously and in accordance with law.
8. With the above observation, petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Msu