NAVEEN KEDIA v. STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU(ACB)
B.A./3305/2026 · 2026-04-30
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 7539 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 7539 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2026:JHHC:12735
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 3305 of 2026
Naveen Kedia, son of Late Shri K.P. Kedia
… … Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand through the Anti-corruption Bureau (ACB)
… … Opposite Party ---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Devashish Bharuka, Senior Advocate
: Ms. Trisha Mittal, Advocate
: Ms. Aparna Sharma, Advocate
: Mr. Shailesh Poddar, Advocate
: Mr. Shashank Shekhar (No.3), Advocate
: Ms. Xenia Dhar, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate
: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate
: Mr. Nillohit Choubey, Advocate
---
03/30.04.2026
Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 10.03.2026 in connection with ACB Ranchi P.S. Case No. 09 of 2025, registered under Section 120B read with sections 420/467/468/471/409/107/109 of IPC [corresponding to Section 61(2) read with sections 318/336/340/316/45 and 49 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023] and section 7(c)/12, section 13(2) read with 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (amended in 2018), now pending in the court of learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ranchi.
3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the allegations reveal that in the liquor scam in the State of Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh Distilleries Limited was one of the suppliers of liquor through M/s Om Sai Beverages and it was M/s Om Sai Beverages who entered into agreement for supply in the State of Jharkhand as a wholesale supplier.
4. The learned Senior counsel has submitted that pursuant to the last
order, a supplementary affidavit has been placed on record indicating that the petitioner was the director of the company namely, Chhattisgarh
2026:JHHC:12735
2
Distilleries Limited only during the period from 02.11.2009 to 10.05.2010 and then, from 20.11.2024 to 05.03.2025 and the entire alleged offence in the present case in connection with Chhattisgarh Distilleries Limited is of the year, 2022. He has also submitted that at the time of alleged offence, the petitioner was not connected with Chhattisgarh Distilleries Limited and the documents annexed with the supplementary affidavit are the statutory documents which show the period of directorship of the petitioner in Chhattisgarh Distilleries Limited.
5. The learned Senior counsel has also submitted that no link showing any connection of any money transaction or otherwise has been found against the petitioner. The statement of the petitioner was recorded under section 183 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and in his statement, the fact that the petitioner was not the director of the company at the relevant point of time, was not disclosed and it appears that in such circumstances, the petitioner has been made accused in this case. The learned Senior counsel submits that there is nothing on record to link the petitioner to the alleged offence.
6.
Learned counsel for the opposite party- ACB, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has referred to the counter-affidavit and the statement made by the petitioner under section 183 of BNSS and has placed the entire statement.
7. He has submitted that as per statement of the petitioner, the petitioner met the co-accused Arun Pati Tripathi and Sri Anwar Dhebor in their office at Raipur and the petitioner was asked to make supplies to M/s Om Sai Beverages, who in turn was to supply liquor in Jharkhand. He has further submitted that the necessary document for the supply was issued to M/s Om Sai Beverages by the petitioner as stated by the petitioner in his statement under section 183 of BNSS.
8. He has further submitted that the co-accused namely, Siddharth Singhania, whose statement has been recorded under section 180 BNSS, has also supported the presence of the petitioner in the entire transaction.
9. However, during the course of hearing and upon a query of this Court, the learned counsel for the opposite – ACB has fairly submitted that so far as the document issued to M/s Om Sai Beverages by
2026:JHHC:12735
3
Chhattisgarh Distilleries Limited (the supplier to M/s Om Sai Beverages) is concerned, the same does not contain the signature of the petitioner and it is not in dispute in the counter-affidavit that during the relevant point of time in the year, 2022, the petitioner was not connected with the company namely, Chhattisgarh Distilleries Limited, who was the supplier to M/s Om Sai Beverages.
10. It further appears that the petitioner is under treatment in RIMS Ranchi and he is in custody since 10.03.2026.
11.
Learned counsel for the ACB has also submitted that in the previous petitions filed by the petitioner, the pairvikar of the petitioner had disclosed the petitioner to be the director of the company namely, Chhattisgarh Distilleries Limited and therefore, there was no doubt in the mind of the prosecution that the petitioner was the director of the company. The fact that he was not a director of the company in the year, 2022 has been brought on record for the first time in the supplementary affidavit filed before this Court. 12. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the materials placed on record, it is not in dispute so far that the petitioner was not the director of the company namely, Chhattisgarh Distilleries Limited on the date and the period of the alleged offence and as per the allegation, it was Chhattisgarh Distilleries Limited who was the supplier to M/s Om Sai Beverages, who, in turn, was to supply liquor in the State of Jharkhand. 13. No document or other material has been placed on record or indicated by the learned counsel for the opposite party- ACB to otherwise link the petitioner with the alleged offence apart from statement of the petitioner recorded under section 183 of BNSS that he met the co-accused and the co-accused had asked the petitioner to make supply. Admittedly, there is no supply by the petitioner in his individual capacity. It is not even the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was holding any position in the company, Chhattisgarh Distilleries Limited at the relevant point of time. 14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, particularly the fact that the petitioner appears to have no concern with Chhattisgarh Distilleries Limited at the relevant point of time when the offence is
2026:JHHC:12735
4
alleged to have been committed, the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs Only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ranchi in connection with ACB Ranchi P.S. Case No. 09 of 2025, subject to the following conditions as proposed by the learned counsel for the opposite party- ACB: (i) The petitioner will deposit his passport before the learned court. (ii) One of the bailors would be the present pairvikar of the petitioner.
(iii) The other bailor should be his close relative. (iv) The petitioner will attend the court on each and every date and on account of even single default, the bail bond furnished by the petitioner shall stand cancelled. (v) The petitioner will deposit a self-attested copy of his Aadhar Card along with his mobile number before the learned court which he will not change during the pendency of the case without prior permission of the court. (vi) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation of the case. (vii) The petitioner shall furnish his email ID before the learned court. The prosecution, as and when required, will intimate the petitioner for his appearance for investigation at least three days in advance through e- mail and in case of default of even one day, it will be open to the prosecution to take all coercive steps against the petitioner. 15. The instant application is allowed with the aforesaid conditions. 16. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:30.04.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:01.05.2026