Jharkhand High Court
A.B.A./5447/2026 of BABLU MUNDA Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 29 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.5447 of 2026 ------ Bablu Munda, aged about 29 years, Son of Late Soma Munda, Resident of Marangi, P.O. – Gangpur, P.S. – Godhour, District – Chatra (Jharkhand) .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... ....
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
[2026:JHHC:29324] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.5447 of 2026
------ Bablu Munda, aged about 29 years, Son of Late Soma Munda, Resident of Marangi, P.O. – Gangpur, P.S. – Godhour, District – Chatra (Jharkhand) .... .... …. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
.... .... .... Opposite Party
------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Pandey, Advocate For the State
: Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, Addl.P.P.
------ Order No:-02 Dated:-29-09-2026
Heard the parties.
Apprehending his arrest in connection with Gidhour P.S. Case No.41 of 2025 registered under Sections 318(4), 274, 275, 3(5) of the B.N.S. 2023 and Section 47(a) of the Excise Act, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was involved in preparation of illicit foreign liquor and huge amounts of foreign liquor has been seized from the house of the petitioner. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is then submitted that the co-accused who faced the trial has already been acquitted after the trial of the case. It is also submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-14 of the instant Anticipatory Bail Application. It is further submitted that the petitioner undertakes to co- operate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel appearing for the State on the other hand opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that keeping in view that the petitioner was running an illegal mini foreign liquor factory and he is not co-operating with the investigation of the case and is absconding, his custodial interrogation is required during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.
Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case as also that he is absconding and not co- operating with the investigation of the case, this Court is not inclined to give the privileges of anticipatory bail to the above-named petitioner.
Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the above- named petitioner is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated:-29.09.2026 Saroj/