THE JHARKHAND STORY NETWORK
Ranchi, Feb 3: In a major development in the high-profile liquor scam case in Jharkhand, the Jharkhand High Court on Tuesday dismissed the regular bail application of Chhattisgarh-based liquor businessman Naveen Kedia.
Pronouncing the order, a single bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi held that a bail application under criminal law is not maintainable unless the accused is in judicial custody or has physically surrendered before the court or investigating agency.
Bail Plea Rejected for Non-Compliance With Court Directions
The High Court observed that Naveen Kedia had neither surrendered before the court nor appeared before the investigating agency, and therefore, his bail plea could not be considered on merits. The court noted that the order had earlier been reserved after hearing detailed arguments from both sides and was pronounced on Tuesday.
The court further held that attempting to seek regular bail without complying with the interim bail conditions constitutes an abuse of the process of law.
Arrest in Goa, Transit Bail, and Failure to Surrender
The case relates to the alleged liquor scam in Jharkhand, which the Anti-Corruption Bureau is investigating, Jharkhand under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and corresponding sections of the IPC and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
According to the prosecution, after Naveen Kedia went absconding during the investigation, a look-out notice was issued against him. On the request of the ACB, alerts were circulated to all airports across the country through the Central Bureau of Investigation, effectively preventing any attempt by him to flee abroad.
The ACB informed the court that Kedia was arrested in Goa on January 8 2026, while he was at a spa centre. He was produced before a Goa court for transit remand, which granted him four days’ interim bail with clear directions to surrender before the ACB, Ranchi, by the evening of January 12, 2026.
Interim Bail Conditions Violated
Despite the court’s directions, Naveen Kedia failed to appear before the ACB within the stipulated time, following which he was treated as absconding. The Goa court subsequently recorded that the interim bail conditions had been violated and ordered forfeiture of the ₹5 lakh surety amount.
The Jharkhand High Court also took note of the fact that Kedia attempted to appear before the trial court through video conferencing, which is not permissible for first appearance under the Jharkhand High Court Video Conferencing Rules, 2025.
Supreme Court Rulings Cited on Custody and Bail
While dismissing the bail plea, the High Court relied on multiple Supreme Court judgments, including Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and Sunita Devi v. State of Bihar, reiterating that:
Regular bail presupposes custody, and custody requires either physical arrest or voluntary surrender before the court.
The court clarified that interim bail does not automatically place an accused in judicial custody, particularly when its conditions are not followed.
With the bail plea rejected, the ACB has intensified efforts to trace and apprehend Naveen Kedia, while the investigation into the Jharkhand liquor scam continues.
