2026:JHHC:17334 --1-- A.B.A. No. 1730 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1730 of 2026 ---- Jasim Quraishi, aged about 38 years, son of Hifz Quraishi, resident of Bikramganj, Dhangain, PO and PS – Bikramganj, District – Rohtas, Bihar, 802212 .... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Devesh Ajmani, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Bishwambhar Shastri, Advocate ---- 02/16.06.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Namkum P.S. Case No.257 of 2025 for the alleged offences registered under Sections 338, 336(3) and 340(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 12(1)(2) and 13 of Jharkhand Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter) Act, 2005 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged flesh of cattle. He further submits that false allegations are further made of arranging the consignment of banned bovine meat. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer 2026:JHHC:17334 --2-- A.B.A. No. 1730 of 2026 and submits that in the FIR itself the driver has stated all the details of the petitioner which clearly suggests that the petitioner was the person who has booked the banned bovine meat. He further submits that the informant in paragraph No.4 of the case diary has supported the case and the other witnesses in paragraph Nos.5, 6, 10 and 11 has further supported the case. On these grounds, he submits that the anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. 5. In the FIR itself the driver has disclosed the name of the petitioner and even each and every details of the petitioner is disclosed which prima facie suggests that the petitioner is well- known to the driver and in view of that he has been able to give detailed description of the petitioner and the allegations are there of booking the consignment of banned meat and further the witnesses in the case diary have supported the prosecution, as noted in the argument of learned counsel appearing for the State. 6. In the attending facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 16.06.2026 Sangam/