2025:JHHC:16052 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 7157 of 2024 Motu Mahto @ Ranjeet Yadav, son of Bandhan Mahto, resident of village Kujra, P.O and P.S. Lohardaga, District- Lohardaga, at present resident of Jatra Maidan near Madhukam Colony, P.O and P.S Sukhdeonagar, District- Ranchi. ...... Petitioner(s). Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party(s). ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Navneet Anand, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Someshwar Roy, A.P.P. …..... 06/18.06.2025: This anticipatory bail application under Section(s) 482 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has been preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest for offences registered under Section(s) 272, 290, 468, 34 IPC and Section 47(A) of the Excise Act, in connection with Sukhdeonagar P.S. Case No. 123 of 2024, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi. Heard the parties at length and had gone through the documents, annexed along with this application. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the premises in which the liquor was being prepared illegally does not belong to the petitioner. He further submits that only on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused, the name of the petitioner transpired. It is also transpired from the report of the officials that in a room illegal liquor was being prepared by some miscreants. When the police raided the place, they found that the liquor was being manufactured and a person was bottling the same, who on interrogation disclosed that he is engaged as labour under the direction of this petitioner. Learned A.P.P submits that the petitioner is main accused and proper and thorough investigation is necessary in the present case, where the presence of the petitioner is required. He further submits that a similar nature of case is also pending against this petitioner. In view of the aforesaid facts and the fact that for proper investigation of this case the presence of this petitioner is necessary and also the fact that similar nature of case is pending against this petitioner, I am not inclined to allow this anticipatory bail application. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner, above named, is rejected. Anu/-C.P.-3 (ANANDA SEN, J.)