Azaz Alam Alias Ejaz Alam Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Azaz Alam Alias Ejaz Alam Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Both petitioners enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each, subject to the conditions of a close-relative bailor, undertaking against future indulgence, and attendance at every trial date.

Issue for consideration

Whether petitioners Azaz Alam @ Ejaz Alam and Arif Ansari, in custody since 10.12.2025 in connection with Panki P.S. Case No. 153 of 2025 (B.N.S. and Excise Act offences), should be enlarged on bail, having regard to the contention that they were not manufacturers of English liquor versus the State's reliance on the large recovery made from their vehicles.

Court's answer

Considering that the petitioners were not manufacturers of English liquor, they are directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri R. S. Pandey, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Palamau at Daltonganj, subject to: one bailor being a close relative of both petitioners; an undertaking before the Trial Court not to indulge in any such act in future; and presence during trial on each and every date till conclusion, except for unforeseen circumstances.

Ratio / Principle

B.A. No. 629 of 2026 is allowed with the aforesaid directions.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

B.A. No.629 of 2026 (High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; Sanjay Prasad, J.; decided February 25, 2026): Bail granted to Azaz Alam @ Ejaz Alam and Arif Ansari, accused in Panki P.S. Case No. 153 of 2025 for offences under Sections 111(2)(b), 111(3), 111(4), 271, 272, 274, 341(3), 348, 349, 350 B.N.S. and Sections 47(a), 52, 55 Excise Act. The Court noted the petitioners were in custody since 10.12.2025 (over two months) and, considering that they were not manufacturers of English liquor (petitioner no.1 allegedly a driver and petitioner no.2 allegedly to sell wine in Bihar, associated with co-accused Sunil Prasad and Rahul Prasad), enlarged them on bail bonds of Rs.15,000/- each with two like sureties to the satisfaction of Sri R. S. Pandey, JMFC, Palamau at Daltonganj, conditioned on one close-relative bailor, an undertaking against future indulgence, and presence at every trial date. The State had opposed bail citing a recovery of 28 cartons, each containing 336 bottles of 750 ml English liquor, from the petitioners' vehicles.

Neutral Citation No. (2026:JHHC:5613)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.629 of 2026

Azaz Alam @ Ejaz Alam, aged about 25 years, son of Sadiq Khalifa, resident of vill.- Bangladih, P.O. & P.S.- Panki, District- Palamau, Jharkhand

Arif Ansari, aged about 19 years, son of Riyaz Ansari, resident of vill.- Bangladih, P.O. & P.S.- Panki, District- Palamau, Jharkhand

… Petitioners

- Versus - The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party ------

CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

----For the Petitioners : Mr. A. K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, A.P.P. ---

02/25.02.2026

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for

the State.

2. The present bail application has been filed on behalf of petitioners, who are in custody in connection with Panki P.S. Case No. 153 of 2025, registered for the offences under Sections 111(2)(b), 111(3), 111(4), 271, 272, 274, 341(3), 348, 349, 350 of the B.N.S. and Sections 47(a), 52, 55 of the Excise Act, which is pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Palamau at Daltonganj.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are not manufacturers of English liquor, rather they were associates of co-accused Sunil Prasad and Rahul Prasad, who were manufacturing the liquors. It is further submitted that the petitioner no.1 is the driver, whereas the petitioner no.2 was sitting in the car and was allegedly said to be person for selling the said wine in Bihar. The petitioners are in custody since 10.12.2025 i.e. more than two months and hence, they may be enlarged on bail.

-2-

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners and submitted that huge recovery of 28 cartons, each containing 336 bottles of 750 ml. English liquors was made from the vehicles of the petitioners and hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioners may be rejected.

5. Perused the case diary, F.I.R. and considered the submissions of both sides.

6. It appears that the petitioners are in custody since 10.12.2025 i.e. more than two months.

7. Considering the fact that the petitioners were not manufacturers of English liquor, the petitioners are directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri R. S. Pandey learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Palamau at Daltonganj or his successor court, in connection with Panki P.S. Case No. 153 of 2025, subject to the condition that one of the bailor must be the close relative of both the petitioners and further subject to the conditions that they shall also file undertaking before the Trial Court that they will not indulge in any such act in future and also subject to the conditions that they shall remain present during trial on each and every date till the conclusion of trial, except for unforeseen circumstances.

8. Thus, B.A. No. 629 of 2026 is allowed with the aforesaid directions.

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)

February 25, 2026 Jay/