Mail News Service
Ranchi, Feb 3: In a significant development in the high-profile Jharkhand liquor scam, the Jharkhand High Court on Tuesday rejected the regular bail plea of Chhattisgarh-based liquor businessman Naveen Kedia, holding that a bail application is not maintainable unless the accused is in judicial custody or has physically surrendered before the court or the investigating agency.
The order was pronounced by a single bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, which observed that Kedia had neither surrendered nor placed himself at the disposal of the investigating agency.
In such circumstances, the court held, the bail plea could not be considered on merits. The bench also noted that seeking regular bail without complying with court directions amounted to an abuse of the legal process.
The case pertains to the alleged liquor scam in Jharkhand, which is being probed by the Anti-Corruption Bureau under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act along with relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. During the investigation, Kedia allegedly went absconding, prompting the ACB to issue a look-out notice against him. Alerts were circulated at airports across the country through the Central Bureau of Investigation to prevent any attempt to flee abroad.
According to the prosecution, Kedia was arrested in Goa on January 8, this year while he was at a spa centre.
He was produced before a local court, which granted him four days’ interim bail with explicit directions to surrender before the ACB in Ranchi by the evening of January 12. However, he failed to comply with the order and did not appear before the investigating agency within the stipulated time.
As a result, he was again treated as absconding, and the Goa court subsequently recorded a violation of interim bail conditions, ordering forfeiture of the Rs 5 lakh surety amount.
The High Court also took note of Kedia’s attempt to make his first appearance before the trial court through video conferencing, which was held to be impermissible under the Jharkhand High Court Video Conferencing Rules, 2025.
The court observed that first appearance requires physical presence and cannot be substituted by virtual participation.
While dismissing the bail plea, the court relied on several Supreme Court judgments, including Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and Sunita Devi v. State of Bihar, reiterating that regular bail presupposes custody and that custody can only be established through physical arrest or voluntary surrender.
It further clarified that interim bail does not automatically place an accused in judicial custody, especially when its conditions are violated.
With the rejection of the bail plea, the Anti-Corruption Bureau has intensified efforts to trace and apprehend Naveen Kedia, even as the investigation into the alleged liquor scam in Jharkhand continues.
