2025:JHHC:20996 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3979 of 2025 ----- 1.Pramod Singh, S/o Rajkumar Singh, R/o Village- Bajha, P.O. & P.S.- Katkamsandi, District- Hazaribag, Jharkhand 2.Satyendra Thakur @ Satyendra Kumar Thakur, S/o Late Rambarat Thakur, R/o Village- Piprabazar, P.O. Pipra Bazar, P.S. Hariharganj, District- Palamau, Jharkhand .... Petitioner(s). Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party(s). …… CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Md. Imran Beig, Advocate For the State : Ms. Bandana Sinha, AddI. P.P. …...... 05/ 30.07.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 2. The present anticipatory bail application under Sections 482 and 484 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita has been preferred by the petitioners apprehending their arrest for the offences registered under Sections 274, 275, 336(3), 318(2), 341, 3(5) of BNS and Section 47(a) of the Excise Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they are no way involved in this case. He submits that the entire allegation is false and for the reasons best known the petitioners have been made an accused in this case. He submits that there is no rent agreement also. He lastly submits that one of the co-accused has been granted anticipatory bail. 4. The learned APP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that it is these petitioners and other who had taken the flat on rent and infact these petitioners after taking the premises on rent where bottling duplicate liquor and was trying to sell them as original. After search several empty bottles of branded liquor and duplicate rapers, seals etc. were found. She lastly submits that the accused has been granted bail stands an absolutely different footing as he was merely an introducer of these two petitioners with the flat owner. 5. After hearing the parties, I find that several empty bottles of branded liquor were found in the premises, seals and labels were also found. In a jar 20 liters liquor was also found. But the fact which is apparent from paragraph 68 of the case-diary is that on being noticed under Section 35(3) of BNSS, the petitioners had appeared before the Investigating Officer and got their statement recorded. The I.O. did not arrest the petitioner, which clearly suggest that I.O. did not feel it proper to detain and arrest the petitioners. 6. Considering the aforesaid fact, I feel that this is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail of the petitioners. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application stands allowed. 7. The petitioners, above named, are directed to appear before the learned Court below within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and on their appearance, they shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each, with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Chakradharpur (Chaibasa), in connection with Chakradharpur P.S. Case No. 43 of 2025 subject to the condition that one of the bailers should be a close relative of the petitioners and other should be a resident of State of Jharkhand, having sufficient landed property in his name or in the name of his ancestors in which he is having share and to that effect, he has to file an affidavit before the Trial Court indicating his share in the property. 8. Considering the aforesaid fact, I direct the petitioners to appear before the concerned Court and file their bail bonds with an undertaken, they will appear before the I.O. once in 15 days during investigation. (ANANDA SEN, J.) R.S./