Deepak Kothari vs. The State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, partners of R.K. Products, a registered firm, sought anticipatory bail. They are accused in Crime No. 87/2025 registered by Mehakar Police Station for offences under Section 7 of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (COPTA Act), and Sections 123, 318(4), 190, and 275 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution arose from the interception of a vehicle carrying scented tobacco products branded "SR-1." The petitioners claimed their business operates under valid licenses, with GST compliance, and the product is trademarked. They argued that the seized goods were lawfully manufactured and that the ingredients for the alleged offences were not met. The State opposed bail, citing apprehension of absconding by petitioners residing outside Karnataka.
Held
The Court allowed the petition for anticipatory bail. It found that the petitioners' firm is duly registered and holds valid licenses for the manufacture and sale of the products in question, supported by documents annexed to the memo. The Court acknowledged the clear apprehension of arrest faced by the petitioners. Considering them to be law-abiding businessmen, the Court deemed them entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. The Court directed the respondent-Police to release the petitioners in the event of their arrest, subject to specific conditions. These conditions include appearing before the Investigating Officer within 15 days, executing personal bonds of Rs. 1,00,000/- each with two sureties, regularly appearing before the Trial Court, not tampering with witnesses, cooperating with the investigation, and not involving themselves in similar offences in the future. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with Crime No. 87/2025 registered for offences under Section 7 of the COPTA Act and Sections 123, 318(4), 190, and 275 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners, being partners of a duly registered firm engaged in manufacturing and selling scented tobacco products under valid licenses and with GST compliance, are entitled to anticipatory bail. They contended that the product has a distinct pouch design and is trademarked. They argued that the seized goods were lawfully manufactured and transported, and even if the allegations were true, the essential ingredients for the stated offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita were not made out. They emphasized the imminent threat of arrest and their status as partners of a reputed business establishment. Respondent's arguments: The State opposed the petition, arguing that petitioners 1 and 2 reside in Telangana, and there is a reasonable apprehension of them absconding, which would impede the investigation.
Sections Cited
Section 7, Section 123, Section 318(4), Section 190, Section 275, Section 438
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
The petitioners, who are arraigned as accused, are partners of R.K. Products, a registered partnership firm. They are facing criminal prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Cigarettes and Other HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6160 Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (“COPTA Act”) and for the offences punishable under Sections 123, 318(4), 190, and 275 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The present petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest.
Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, submits that the petitioners, being partners of a duly registered firm engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of scented tobacco products branded as “SR-1,” are carrying on their business under valid licences and with GST compliance. The said product, according to the counsel, has a distinct pouch design and is duly registered under the Trade Marks Act. It is contended that a vehicle carrying the said products was intercepted and a crime came to be registered on the allegation that the HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6160 petitioners were transporting processed tobacco products illegally.
Referring to the documents produced along with the memo, learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioners are duly authorized to manufacture, sell, and transport the said tobacco products, and the seized goods were lawfully manufactured under a valid licence issued by the competent authority. Inviting attention to the provisions of Sections 123, 318(4), 190, and 275 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, it is contended that even if the complaint allegations are accepted in their entirety, none of the essential ingredients constituting the said offences are made out. Therefore, considering the imminent threat of arrest, the petitioners—being partners of a registered and reputed business establishment—have made out a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.
Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently opposes the petition contending that HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6160 petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are residents of Telangana State, and in the event anticipatory bail is granted, there exists a reasonable apprehension of their absconding, thereby impeding the progress of investigation.
By way of reply, learned Senior Counsel, on instructions, submits that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are willing to furnish local sureties and shall strictly abide by all conditions that may be imposed by this Court while granting the relief sought for.
Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the records, this Court finds that the petitioners’ firm is a duly registered entity and holds valid licences authorizing the manufacture and sale of the said products, as borne out from the documents annexed to the memo. In view of the same, and having regard to the fact that there exists a clear apprehension of arrest, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners, being law-abiding HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6160 businessmen, are entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail, subject to appropriate conditions.
Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The respondent–Police are directed to release the petitioners in the event of their arrest in Crime No.87/2025 registered by Mehakar Town Police Station, Bidar district, for the offences punishable under Section 7 of the COPTA Act, 2003 and Sections 123, 318(4), 190, and 275 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which is now pending before the Court of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bhalki, Bidar, subject to the following conditions: (iii) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall execute a personal bonds in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6160 each, with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. (iv) The petitioners shall regularly appear before the Trial Court on all dates of hearing unless specifically exempted by the Court for valid reasons. (v) The petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses and shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, as and when called upon. (vi) The petitioners shall not involve themselves in any offence of similar nature in future. (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE
CA List No.: 4 Sl No.: 1 CT:SI
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.