Karnataka High Court
Deekshith. H. P vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 May, 2026
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:24772
WP No. 15309 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MAY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 15309 OF 2026 (EXCISE)
BETWEEN:
DEEKSHITH. H. P.
S/O PUTTARAJU H.B.,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
OWNER OF 14 WHEELER TANKER
NO.KA-13-D-1827
RESIDING AT NO. MIG 7/C,
2ND STAGE, KUVEMPU NAGARA,
HASSAN -573 201.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAVI M.M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
Digitally signed VIDHANA SOUDHA,
by CHANDANA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BM BENGALURU-560 001.
Location: High
Court of 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE,
Karnataka
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT (BUD-6)
NO.334/6, EXCISE BHAVANA,
KSBCL COMPLEX,
OPP BYATARYANAPURA POLICE STATION,
MYSORE ROAD,
BENGALURU- 560 026.
3. THE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE
PADMANABHANAGARA ZONAL NO.36,
BENGALURU- 560 006.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BOPANNA BELLIYAPPA, AGA)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:24772
WP No. 15309 of 2026
HC-KAR
THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CONDITION NO.1
IMPOSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN ORDER NO.EXE/BUD-6/VA-
36/DTCR/134/2025-26 DATED 23.02.2026, WHEREIN THE RESPONDENT
NO.2 IMPOSED A CONDITION TO FURNISH BANK GUARANTEE FOR
RS.10,20,000/-TO RELEASE THE SEIZED VEHICLE 14 WHEELER TANKER
NO.KA-13-D-1827 BELONG TO THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
” a) Quash the Condition No.1 imposed by the
Respondent No.2 in Order No. EXE/BUD/-6/Va-
36/DTCR/134/2025-26 dated: 23.02.2026, herein the
Respondent No.2 imposed a condition to furnish Bank
Guarantee for Rs.10,20,000/- to release the seized vehicle 14
Wheeler Tanker No. KA-13-D-1827 belong to the petitioner
vide Annexure-A.
b) grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit
and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interest of
justice and equity.”
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
AGA for the respondents and perused the material on record.
3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in
the memorandum of petition and referring to the material on record,
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:24772
WP No. 15309 of 2026
HC-KAR
learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the order of
the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sudeep S. Vs.
State of Karnataka and others – W.P.No.7357/2025 dated
22.08.2025, in order to contend that the present petition deserves to
be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid decision.
4. Per contra, learned AGA for the respondents submits
that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be
dismissed.
5. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the present petition is directly and squarely covered by the
decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sudeep
S. Vs. State of Karnataka and others – W.P.No.7357/2025 dated
22.08.2025, which reads as under:
“Challenging condition no.1 imposed by respondent no.2
in order dated 25.10.2024 at Annexure-A requiring petitioner
to furnish bank guarantee for Rs.4,10,000/- for release of
petitioner’s vehicle no.KA-45-A-3767, this writ petition is filed.
2. Sri B Lethif, learned counsel for petitioner submitted,
on a complaint by respondent no.3 that at 8:15 P.M. on
12.04.2023, information was received about a vehicle parked
near Raghavendra Sweets and Bakery contained a plastic
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:24772
WP No. 15309 of 2026HC-KAR
cover in which 15.03 ltrs. of liquor in tetra packs were stored,
petitioner’s vehicle namely, Tata Magic vehicle reg.no. KA-45-
A-3767 (‘vehicle’ for short) was searched between 8:45 P.M.
to 10:15 P.M., mahazar drawn to effect that quantity of 15.03
ltrs. liquor in tetra packs were found in illegal possession
constituting offences under Sections 32(1), 38(A) and 43(A)
of Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, (‘Act’ for short) said vehicle
was seized.
3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet as per
Annexure-F was filed for offences under Sections 32(1),
38(A) and 43(A) of Act against petitioner on 05.02.2024. With
filing of charge sheet and matter awaiting trial, as vehicle was
lying idle and open to elements sustaining damage/wastage
of value, an application for its release was filed on
24.02.2024. But on 08.05.2024, respondent no.2 passed an
order of forfeiture of vehicle. Said order was challenged in
WP no.18345/2024 before this Court. Same was allowed on
23.07.2024 as per order at Annexure-L permitting release
subject to petitioner furnishing security to satisfaction of
respondent no.2.
4. In pursuance of said order, respondent no.2 passed
order on 25.10.2024, allowing application subject to various
conditions, including impugned condition requiring petitioner
to furnish bank guarantee for Rs.4,10,000/- from any
Nationalized Bank valid for minimum period of one year to be
renewed for like period till final order. Aggrieved by said
condition, writ petition was filed.
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:24772
WP No. 15309 of 2026
HC-KAR
5. It was submitted, Section 43(A) of Act though provided
mandatory condition for furnishing bank guarantee equal to
value of vehicle while allowing application for release of
seized vehicle, fixation of value at Rs.4,10,000/- was illegal
especially as there was no provision/rule providing for
manner of determination of value and secondly, this Court
while considering similar condition imposed in cases under
Forest Act, had ordered for release on furnishing of indemnity
bond. On said grounds, sought for interference.
6. On other hand, Sri Bhojegowda T Koller, learned AGA
opposed petition. It was submitted, imposition of condition for
furnishing bank guarantee was in strict compliance with
proviso to Section 43(A) (2) of Act and decision relied upon
were passed under provisions of Forest Act inapplicable to
cases under Excise Act and sought dismissal of writ petition.
7. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition.
8. From above, it is seen this writ petition is filed
challenging condition no.1 in order at Annexure-A, firstly on
ground that it was arbitrary, when neither Section 43A of Act
nor any other provision, rule or notification provided for
manner of assessment of value of seized vehicle.
9. Merely on ground that statutory provision did not
provide for complete mechanism for assessment of value of
vehicle seized, while mandatorily requiring furnishing of Bank
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:24772
WP No. 15309 of 2026
HC-KAR
Guarantee equal to value of seized vehicle as condition for its
release, would not render said provision nugatory.
10. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Section Forester
and Anr. v. Mansoor Ali Khan reported in AIR 2004 SCW 5
has held, release of vehicle in case of offences under Special
Enactments should be for good reasons and in exceptional
cases that also upon a minimum condition of furnishing bank
guarantee as contemplated under Act. Same is reiterated by
this Court in case of K. Ekambaram Reddy v. Deputy
Conservator of Forest and Anr. reported in 2007 (5) KLJ
112.
11. Thereafter, in case of Shashavali v. State of
Karnataka reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Kar 6586, learned
Single Judge of this Court has held:
“10. The meaning of the word ‘estimate’ as per
the Websters’s dictionary is “the act appraising or
valuing an opinion or quality of a person or a thing”.
According to my opinion, the Judge or the authorized
officer who has to estimate the value should
estimate the same on the basis of some standards to
ascertain as to the value of the vehicle as on the
date of seizure depending on its model, nature and
performance. If the Judge or the Officer is unable to
estimate the value, he has to take the assistance
seeking the evaluation report from the competent
authority i.e.
Regional Transport Officer concerned or any
other competent authority and thereafter fix the
amount of Bank guarantee amount.
11. Therefore, the imposition of the condition
directing the petitioners to produce the Bank
guarantee for Rs. 10,00,000/-, without properly
estimating the value in accordance with any of the
recognized standards or any basis, in my opinion, is
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:24772
WP No. 15309 of 2026
HC-KAR
not proper. However, it cannot be said that, such a
condition cannot be imposed directing the Party to
produce the Bank Guarantee at all. However, after
estimating the value as contemplated under Section
63 of the Karnataka Forest Act, the Competent
Authority has to impose such a condition in
accordance with the estimation.
12. The learned Counsel has produced before
this Court, the copy of the Valuation Report of each
vehicle seized in this Particular case issued by the
Inspector of Motor Vehicles, R.T.O. Office, Hospet.
13. As could be seen, none of the vehicle was
valued more than Rs. 8,50,000/-. Though this is a
guideline to the learned Magistrate to estimate the
value of the vehicle, the learned Magistrate is at
liberty to secure any other information from any other
competent authority in order to estimate the value of
the vehicle, as on the date of the seizure if he feels it
necessary. Therefore, in view of the above
observation, the matter has to be remitted to the trial
Court, with a direction that the Magistrate to estimate
the value of the vehicle as noted above and then
impose suitable and appropriate condition directing
the owners of the vehicles to furnish such a Bank
guarantee as required in each of the cases.”
11. In view of above, requirement of furnishing of
bank guarantee for Rs.4,10,000/- corresponding to value of
vehicle seized as estimated by officials of RTO cannot be
said to be illegal or contrary to law. However, taking note of
fact that maximum amount of fine that can be imposed on
conviction for offences alleged against petitioner under
Sections 32(1), 38(A) and 43(A) of Act would approximate to
around Rs.1,25,000/-, requirement of furnishing bank
guarantee for Rs.4,10,000/- would not be justified and could
be moderated to bank guarantee for Rs.1,00,000/- and
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:24772
WP No. 15309 of 2026
HC-KAR
indemnity bond for remaining amount of value for petitioner’s
vehicle.
For aforesaid reasons, writ petition is allowed in part;
condition no.1 imposed by respondent no.2 for release of
petitioner’s vehicle namely issuing of bank guarantee for
Rs.4,10,000/- in Annexure-A is modified and reduced to
Rs.1,00,000/- with condition to furnish indemnity bond for
remaining Rs.3,10,000/-. On furnishing of same and after
verifying compliance with all other conditions imposed in his
order dated 25.10.2024, respondent no.2 to release
petitioner’s vehicle forthwith.”
6. The aforesaid decision is applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the instant case and consequently, the present
petition also deserves to be disposed of in terms of the decision of a
co-ordinate Bench of this Court, referred to supra.
7. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is disposed of in terms of the decision of
a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
W.P.No.7357/2025 dated 22.08.2025.
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:24772
WP No. 15309 of 2026
HC-KAR
(ii) The condition No.1 imposed by respondent No.2 for
release of petitioner’s vehicle by issuing of bank
guarantee for Rs.10,20,000/- in Annexure-A is
modified and reduced to Rs.1,20,000/- with
condition to furnish indemnity bond for remaining
Rs.9,00,000/-. On furnishing of same and after
verifying compliance with all other conditions
imposed in his order dated 23.02.2026, respondent
no.2 to release petitioner’s vehicle forthwith.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
BMC
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 92
