2026:JHHC:27692 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI ---- A.B.A No.4322 of 2026 ---- Ranjit Kumar Yadav @ Golu, aged about 23 years, son of Parmeshwar Yadav, resident of Village Serandag, PS Herhanj, PO Herhanj, District Latehar, Jharkhand …. .... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand ….. .... Respondent ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner(s) :- Mr. B.M. Tripathy, senior Advocate For the State :- Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, Advocate ---- 3/11.09.2026 Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Chandwa P.S. Case No.110 of 2026, for offence registered under section 303(2), 317(2), 336(3), 338, 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and section 47a, 52, 58 of Jharkhand Excise Act, pending in court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar. 3. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the name of the petitioner has come only on confessional statement of the apprehended co-accused. He also submits that it is well settled that the confessional statement is not a ground to implicate any person in the case. He also submits that the petitioner has already been granted anticipatory bail by this court in another case lodged earlier to the present case. He also submits that the allegation of smuggling of foreign liquor is false and in view of that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted to the petitioner. 2026:JHHC:27692 2 4. Learned State counsel opposes prayer and submits that witnesses have directly stated that this petitioner was indulged in smuggling of foreign liquor and he submits that anticipatory bail to the petitioner may kindly be rejected. 5. Considering that name of the petitioner has been taken by the apprehended co-accused and they have stated that the petitioner was indulged in smuggling of foreign liquor. At page no.19 of the case diary, the witness has stated that the petitioner was indulged in smuggling of foreign liquor, at page 23 of the case diary witnesses, namely Om Prakash Ram has stated same thing about the petitioner, at page no.27 of the case diary, one witness has stated the same thing about the petitioner and at page no.31 witness Raj Kumar has directly taken name of the petitioner saying that the petitioner was indulged in smuggling of foreign liquor and in page no.38 of the case diary, another witness has taken the name of the petitioner and the petitioner is having one criminal antecedent and earlier this Court has allowed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner relating to the case of the year 2025 whereas this case has been filed in the year 2026 which prima facie suggest the even after allowing of the anticipatory bail of the petitioner earlier in another case, the petitioner has not stopped there and he used to indulge in smuggling of foreign liquor, and in the attending facts and circumstances of the present case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6. As such, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is, hereby, rejected and consequently, A.B.A No.4322 of 2026 is, hereby, dismissed. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated : 11.09.2026 SI/