Bhupendrapal Singh Bhatia Vs State of Jharkhand through the Anti Corruption Bureau

¶1

 ( 2026:JHHC:6238 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B. A. No. 7433 of 2025

¶3

Bhupendrapal Singh Bhatia, aged about 56 years, son of Surjeet Singh Bhatia, resident of House No. 56, Opp. Punjabi Colony, Dayalband, Bilaspur (m. Corp). Bilaspur, P.O. Bilaspur, P.S. Bilaspur, (Chhatisgarh)

¶4

...... … Petitioner Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand through Anti-Corruption Bureau

¶6

.…. … Opposite Party -------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner :Mr. Anil Kumar, Senior Advocate

¶7

For the ACB : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate : Mr. Ritesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate : Ms. Shruti Shekhar, Advocate Mr. Nillohit Choubey, Advocate

¶8

08/10.03.2026 : This anticipatory bail application was filed on 05.12.2025. I.A. No. 16640 of 2025 has been filed for ignoring the defect. By order dated 15.12.2025 the said I.A. was allowed and defect no. 39 was ignored. Thereafter the petitioner has filed I.A for early hearing of the anticipatory bail application and the case was listed for 22.12.2025. On 22.12.2025, the Court directed to list the matter under the heading for admission along with the I.A. On 24.02.2026 Mr. Anil Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has placed the order dated 20.02.2026 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court requested the High Court to pass order on merits on the date it has already been listed and in view of that the Court has allowed the mentioning and fixed the matter at 3.00 P.M. however, the matter which was taken up at 12.00 noon continued up to 4.40 p.m and in view of that this application was not taken up on that day. However, on the request of Mr. Gadodia, learned counsel for the A.C.B the matter was listed for 26.02.2026 and this Bench was not available on 26.02.2026. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner pointed out that he has

¶9

¶10

 ( 2026:JHHC:6238 )

¶11

mentioned this matter before the Coordinate Bench which was allowed and the Coordinate Bench has fixed the matter for 09.03.2026. This matter was listed on 09.03.2026 at serial no. 78 and in view of the Court has posted this matter for today at the top of list and that is how this matter has been taken out of turn and accordingly this matter is being disposed of in the light of observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶12

Heard Mr. Anil Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel for the A.C.B.

¶13

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Hazaribagh A.C.B. P.S. Case No. 09 of 2025 registered under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 107, 109 of the Indian Penal Code (corresponding to Sectio 61 (2) read with Section 318, 336, 340, 316, 45 and 49 of Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita) and Section 7(c)/12, Section 13 (2) read with section 13 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Amended in 2018) (PC Act), pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, ACB at Ranchi. 4. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and even the petitioner is not named in F.I.R however, later on the warrant of arrest has been issued and in view of that the petitioner has been compelled to file the present anticipatory bail application. He next submits that petitioner is one of the directors of M/s Bhatia Wine Merchants Pvt. Ltd., a duly incorporated company having its distillery plant situated in the state of Chhatisgarh. He further submits that under the Jharkhand Liquor (Storage and Wholesale) Rules, 2022, wholesalers were appointed for the supply of liquor to Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation Limited which rules are applicable to wholesalers. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has placed the

¶14

¶15

 ( 2026:JHHC:6238 )

¶16

relevant portion of the Rule, 2022 and pointed out the several provisions of the Rules of supplying and taking ‘No Objection’ and consent of supplying the liquor. He further submits that on 16.04.2022, M/s Bhatia Wine Merchants Pvt. Ltd. gave a ‘No Objection’ to M/s Om Sai Beverages Pvt. Ltd for giving distribution of its brands provided they obtained their approved distribution license under the Jharkhand Excise for distribution of country liquor products/brands in Jharkhand and for that M/s Om Sai Beverages Pvt. Ltd and M/s Bhatia Wine Merchants Pvt. Ltd. have signed a ‘No Objection’ document contained in Annexure-3 of the anticipatory bail application. He next submits that in the light of Rule, M/s Om Sai Beverages Pvt. Ltd. was granted wholesale license in Jharkhand and an agreement was executed on 27.04.2022 between the Governor of Jharkhand (through the Excise Commissioner) and the said wholesaler. By way of drawing the attention of the Court to the F.I.R, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that in the F.I.R, there is allegation of not following the rules and the petitioner has already followed the rules and in view of that no case is made out against the petitioner. He next submits that by letter dated 28.04.2022 M/s Om Sai Beverages Pvt. Ltd informed the Joint Commissioner of Excise, Jharkhand that it had agreement with M/s Bhatia Wine Merchants Pvt. Limited for supply of IMFL and country liquor and since the registration of the brand of the company was required it requested the approval of the company’s brand. He next submits that M/s Bhatia Wine Merchants Pvt. Limited by letter dated 28.04.2022 addressed to the Commissioner of Excise sought permission for supply of country liquor in the State of Jharkhand which was granted by letter dated 05.05.2022 till 13.05.2022 i.e for 15 days from the date of publication of Public Notice. He next submits that in the

¶17

¶18

 ( 2026:JHHC:6238 )

¶19

light of letter dated 13.05.2022 contained in Annexure-9 the said supply was extended till 24.05.2022. He also draws the attention of the Court to Lab Analysis Reprot of Chhatisgarh and submits that the said liquor was already analyzed by the District Excise Authority of Bilaspur, Chhatisgarh and thereafter the liquor has been supplied. He further submits that the allegations made against the petitioner of suppling of Romeo plain and Mahua Plain liquor which was substandard. He also draws the attention of the Court to the report of Food Analysis of the State of Jharkhand and submits that although the liquor was found substandard however, it was pointed out that was not unsafe. He next submits that in view of Annexure12, the petitioner was directed to withdraw the liquor which was not sold as yet and in the light of annexure-13 the petitioner was allowed to withdraw the liquor. In this background, he submits that role of the petitioner is very limited and petitioner has acted bonafidely and only allegation is made of supplying of substandard liquor. He further submits that in the counter affidavit it has been stated that notice under section 35(3) of BNSS, 2023 have been sent four times but in one point of time the petitioner has not received the notice and in second time the petitioner has received the notice and already replied to that notice. He next submits that the false allegation of conspiracy has been made against the petitioner and in view of that the petitioner may kindly be granted anticipatory bail.

¶20

On the other hand, Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel for the Anti Corruption vehemently opposes the prayer of the anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner inspite of the assurance given by way of one of the letter has not appeared before the A.C.B and he has not cooperated in the investigation. He draws the attention of the Court to the

¶21

¶22

 ( 2026:JHHC:6238 )

¶23

Notice under section 35(3) of BNSS, 2023 contained in Annexure-A of the counter affidavit and submits that the petitioner was required to appear on 04.08.2025. However the said notice remained unclaimed and postal endorsement is there that for five days postal peon has waited and to serve the notice however the petitioner has not responded and in view of that the postal peon has submitted report saying that petitioner is absent. He further submits that next notice is dated 11.08.2025 and the petitioner was required to appear before the ACB on 20.08.2025 at 12.00 noon. He next submits that reply was received in the office of Anti Corruption Bureau wherein the petitioner has disclosed that there was certain difficulties and he would make all endeavour to appear for answering the questions at office of A.C.B on receiving a fresh notice with reasonable time to travel and appear on the day fixed. Thereafter another notice was sent to appear 01.09.2025 and again on 23.09.2025 however the petitioner was again found to be absent. He submits that inspite of assurance given by the petitioner by way of one of the reply, the petitioner has not appeared. He next submits that on the pubic notice for taking no objection for supply of liquor was published on 29.04.2022 contained in Annexure-D series of the counter affidavit wherein the petitioner has already applied for consent of supply of liquor by letter dated 28.04.2022 contained in Annexure-F of the counter affidavit and the petitioner has entered into an agreement with M/s Om Sai Beverages Pvt. Ltd for supply of liquor on 16.04.2022. By way of placing these dates and documents, Mr. Gagodia learned counsel for the A.C.B submits that connivance of this petitioner is fully proved in the manner the petitioner has applied for supply of consent and entered into agreement with M/s Om Sai Beverages Pvt. Ltd and even applied for consent prior of Public Notice i.e.

¶24

¶25

 ( 2026:JHHC:6238 )

¶26

16.04.2022. He further submits that Food Analysis Report is annexed to Annexure-I of the counter affidavit wherein it has been clearly opined that the liquor was sub-standard due to presence of traces of visible extraneous matter cellulose. He next submits that substandard liquor and unsafe are two different things and in view of that the petitioner does not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail. He further refers to paras 413 and 521 of the case diary and submits that the statement of co-accused namely, Siddharth Singhania has been recorded under section 180 of BNSS wherein he has stated that the company namely, M/s Om Sai Beverages Pvt. Ltd and Dishita Ventures Private Limited used to collect commission for each box of country liquor and out of the said commission amount, a fixed amount was paid to Vinay Kumar Choubey and Arunpati Tripathi. M/s Om Sai Beverages Pvt. Ltd and Dishita Ventures Private Limited used to purchase only country liquor of unpopular brands which used to give the demanded commission and due to which the popular brands were not available in the market. He next submits that in the same line Sanjeev Jain, Rajeev Dwivedi, Manish Jain (all directors of Prima One Work Force Private Limited) have given their statement in para 521 of the case diary. Lastly, he submits that the petitioner in para 68 of the anticipatory bail application has stated that petitioner is having one another criminal case of identical nature in the State of Chhatisgarh. He further submits that one Asheesh Saurabh Kedia who is one of the director of Dishita Ventures Private Limited has moved before this Court in A.B.A. No. 5390 of 2025 which was rejected by order dated 13.11.2025. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail of the petitioner may kindly be rejected.

¶27

In view of above submissions of the learned counsel for the

¶28

¶29

 ( 2026:JHHC:6238 )

¶30

petitioner and learned counsel for the Anti Corruption Bureau, the Court has gone through the materials on record including contents of F.I.R. It is an admitted position that the petitioner has applied for supply of country liquor in the State of Jharkhand which was sold by M/s Om Sai Beverages Pvt. Ltd. A Public Notice of consent was issued on 29.04.2022 whereas the petitioner has already made an application for consent on 28.04.2022 in the light of page 35 of the counter-affidavit and applied for consent before the authority concerned on 16.04.2022 itself which clearly suggests that this petitioner was in connivance with others for supply of liquor. Further, in para 413 of the case diary the statement of co-accused namely, Siddharth Singhania has been recorded under section 180 of BNSS wherein he has stated that the company namely, M/s Om Sai Beverages Pvt. Ltd and Dishita Ventures Private Limited used to collect commission for each box of country liquor and out of the said commission amount, a fixed amount was paid to Vinay Kumar Choubey and Arunpati Tripathi. M/s Om Sai Beverages Pvt. Ltd and Dishita Ventures Private Limited used to purchase only country liquor of unpopular brands which used to give the demanded commission and due to which the popular brands were not available in the market. In the same line Sanjeev Jain, Rajeev Dwivedi, Manish Jain (all directors of Prima One Work Force Private Limited) have given their statement in para 521 of the case diary. The Food Analyst has found the supply of said liquor was to be sub-standard due to presence of traces of visible extraneous matter cellulose. Thus, it is an admitted position that sub-standard liquor was supplied. In para 68 of the anticipatory bail application the petitioner has stated that he has one criminal antecedent of similar nature in the State of Chhatisgarh. The anticipatory bail of the co-accused namely, Asheesh Saurabh Kedia has already been rejected

¶31

¶32

 ( 2026:JHHC:6238 )

¶33

by this Court.

¶34

In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and accordingly, anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. Pending I.A, if any, stands dismissed.

¶35

Dt.10.03.2026 ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶36

Satyarthi/-

¶37

Bhupendrapal Singh Bhatia v. State of Jharkhand through the Anti Corruption Bureau

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhupendrapal Singh Bhatia v. State of Jharkhand through the Anti Corruption Bureau

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pramod Kumar Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Kamruddin Miyan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Natwar Lal Alias Natwal Rawani Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pramod Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand

Pratik Vs the State of Jharkhand through Home Secretary, Govt of Jharkhand

Dhiraj Kumar Singh Alias Dheeraj Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand