Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 2943 (JHR)

RAJU KAIBARATA v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

A.B.A./1142/2026 · 2026-04-07

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:9879 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1142 of 2026 ------ 1. Raju Kaibarta, son of Jawaharlal Kaibarta 2. Sevak Kaibarta, son of Jawaharlal Kaibarta Both residents of Village Kamalpur, P.S. Gamharia, P.O. Gamharia, District Seraikella Kharsawan .... .... …. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioners : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Mahto, A.P.P. ------ 02/07.04.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P for the State. 2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 1434 of 2025, registered for the offence under Sections 47(a), 47(b), 47(e), 55 of the Excise Act, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegations are made that from a dilapidated house, about 295.92 liters of illicit liquor has been recovered. He submits that the house does not belong to the petitioners and even the petitioners were not present on the spot. He further submits that only on secret information, the name of petitioners have come and the name of the person, who has taken the name of the petitioners, is not disclosed in the FIR. He also submits that the petitioners are not having criminal antecedents as disclosed in para 15 of the petition. 4. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the prayer and submits that the name of the petitioners has been taken by the villagers. 5. Considering that the name of person, who has taken the name of the petitioners, is not disclosed in the FIR and the petitioners are not having criminal antecedents as disclosed in para 15 of the petition and even the house is not belonging to the petitioners, as denied by the learned counsel for the petitioners, in that view of the matter, the petitioners, named above, are directed to surrender before the learned Court within two weeks from today and the learned Court shall release the petitioners on such terms and conditions or the sureties as the learned Court may deem fit and proper. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Anit Uploaded 10.04.2026