Jharkhand High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in Liquor Scam Case Involving Bhilai Steel Plant Employee

News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 304 | 2026:JHHC:12100

April 24, 2026 : The Jharkhand High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to Arvind Singh, a Bhilai-based employee, in a case linked to an alleged liquor scam involving fake bank guarantees and corruption in Jharkhand. The order was passed by Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary while hearing Singh’s plea in a matter investigated by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ranchi.

The case traces back to 2023, when the Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation Limited engaged two private placement agencies to supply manpower for retail liquor outlets. Investigators later alleged that the agencies had submitted forged bank guarantees, leading to the registration of a criminal case. During the investigation, authorities claimed to have uncovered a wider network involving officials, intermediaries and private entities. Singh’s name surfaced as an alleged key participant who facilitated commission payments and acted as a link between individuals operating in Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh.

Statements of witnesses and co-accused, recorded under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, suggested that Singh was involved in pressuring agencies to participate in tenders despite low margins and was connected to the movement of illicit funds within the alleged syndicate. The prosecution argued that these statements, along with other materials, established his active role in the offence.

The court also took note of Singh’s failure to comply with multiple notices issued by the investigating officer. Although he claimed that he was required to attend proceedings in Chhattisgarh, the court observed that he had not placed sufficient material on record to substantiate this claim. It found that his non-appearance had affected the progress of the investigation and indicated a lack of cooperation.

Rejecting the plea, the court held that the allegations pointed to a serious economic offence involving a deep-rooted conspiracy. It emphasized that custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the full extent of the alleged scam and to confront the accused with other individuals involved in the case. The court further noted that, unlike a co-accused who had been granted bail earlier due to lack of direct evidence, there was sufficient material against Singh, including witness testimonies linking him to the alleged activities.

The bench also expressed concern that granting anticipatory bail could create a risk of evidence being tampered with. Referring to established principles laid down in decisions such as P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement and Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, the court reiterated that anticipatory bail should not be granted as a matter of routine in cases involving serious financial crimes and public money.

In view of the evidence collected and the need for further investigation, the court concluded that Singh was not entitled to anticipatory bail and dismissed his application.

Case Reference : A.B.A. No. 7455 of 2025, Arvind Singh v. State of Jharkhand through Anti-Corruption Bureau; for the petitioner: Mr. Shashank Mishra and Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocates; for the opposite party: Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Mr. Ritesh Kumar Gupta, Mr. Nillohit Choubey, Ms. Sanya Kumari and Ms. Shruti Shekhar, Advocates.