( 2026:JHHC:20773 ) -1- A.B.A. No. 2232 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2232 of 2026 Upendra Yadav @ Upendra Kumar, aged about 33 years, son of Kedar Yadav, resident of Jhapa, P.O. Dadpur, P.S. Chouparan, Dist. Hazaribag … Petitioner -Versus- The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Ruby Pandey, A.P.P. ----- 05/14.07.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Chauparan P.S. Case No.347 of 2025, registered for the offence under Sections 274, 275, 292, 340(2), 317(5), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 47(a) of the Excise Act, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribag. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that the allegations of running mini factory of illegal foreign liquor is not correct. He submits that in view of that, anticipatory bail may kindly be granted to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and submits that in the last order, case diary was called for and now the case diary has been received, whereas, the witnesses in paras 6, 7 and 8 have taken name of the petitioner and they have specifically stated that this petitioner is the owner of the said mini factory and he was running the said factory where foreign liquor has been illegally made in Karanjuwa forest. ( 2026:JHHC:20773 ) -2- A.B.A. No. 2232 of 2026 5. Considering that the allegations are there against the petitioner of running mini factory of illegal foreign liquor and the witnesses in paras 6, 7 and 8 of the case diary have specifically stated that the petitioner is operating the said mini factory where foreign liquor has been illegally made and in the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and, as such, his prayer for anticipatory bail is, hereby, rejected. 6. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated: 14th July, 2026 Ajay/