2025:JHHC:14943 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.3145 of 2025 ------ Rahul Kumar Sharma, S/o- Tripit Sharma, R/o- Surya Nagar, Lalganj, P.O.- Sugnu, P.S.- Khelgaon, Sadar, Lalganj, Ranchi, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand. … … Opposite Party ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Advocate. Mr. Ishan Kumar Jha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Achinto Sen, A.P.P. ----- 02/ 10.06.2025 Heard the parties at length. 2. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has been preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 11509 of 2025, for offences under Sections 47(a), 47(b), 47(d), 47(e), 52(d) and 55 of Excise Act. The case is presently pending before the Court of learned A.C.J.M, Ranchi. 3. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is that during raid at the rented house of the petitioner and others, huge quantity of foreign liquor of different brands was recovered. 4. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence. He further submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case by the informant due to ulterior motives and malice. He submits that the petitioner is not involved in any manner with either manufacturing or supplying of the seized liquor. He also 2025:JHHC:14943 2 submits that not a single person from the locality has come forward to state before the police that the petitioner used to sell wine. 5. The learned A.P.P. representing the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. He also submits that the petitioner is evading his arrest and prosecution has also made a prayer before the Court concerned for issuing arrest warrants against the petitioner. 6. After hearing the parties and from the perusal of the impugned order, I find that there was recovery of huge quantity of foreign liquor from the rented house of the petitioner. The seizure list was also prepared in the presence of witnesses. During raid, the petitioner managed to flee. The record also suggests that prosecution has already moved before the Court concerned for issuing arrest warrant against the petitioner. 7. Considering the aforesaid allegation, this Court does not find it a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. 8. Accordingly, this Anticipatory Bail Application stands dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Prashant. Cp-3