The Jharkhand High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to a man accused of storing banned tobacco products and cigarette cartons allegedly without GST bills, holding that no fresh ground had been made out to entertain his third anticipatory bail application.
The bench Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi has observed that merely receiving a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, could not be treated as a new circumstance warranting reconsideration of bail.
The case has been registered for offences under Sections 188, 269, 270 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 20(1) of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act (COTPA), and Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act.
Buy Now: GST Judgements E-Compilation – June 2026
According to the prosecution, five gunny bags of tobacco pan masala and several cartons of cigarettes allegedly without GST bills were recovered from a house said to belong to the accused. The prosecution also alleged that the tobacco pan masala recovered during the raid was a banned product in the State of Jharkhand.
The petitioner had earlier approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail in 2022, but that application was dismissed for default. A second anticipatory bail application filed in 2026 was subsequently withdrawn with liberty to approach the trial court on a fresh ground. After the trial court rejected his plea on the ground that no fresh circumstance existed, the petitioner once again approached the High Court by filing the present, third anticipatory bail application.
The petitioner contended that he had now received a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which constituted a fresh development justifying a renewed request for anticipatory bail. He further argued that there was no documentary evidence establishing that the premises from which the tobacco products and cigarette cartons without GST bills were recovered actually belonged to him. On this basis, he sought protection from arrest.
The State opposed the bail application, arguing that the petitioner had already availed the liberty granted by the High Court to raise fresh grounds before the lower court, but the trial court had rightly found that no new circumstance existed. The prosecution also maintained that the premises where the prohibited tobacco products and cigarette cartons without GST bills were allegedly stored belonged to the petitioner.
The High Court found that the allegations against the petitioner were direct and specific. It noted that the prosecution had alleged recovery of five gunny bags of tobacco pan masala and cigarette cartons without GST bills from premises allegedly belonging to him. The Court also took note of the allegation that the tobacco pan masala recovered had already been banned by the Government of Jharkhand.
The Court observed that despite filing a third anticipatory bail application, the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any genuinely fresh ground that would justify reconsideration of his request for pre-arrest bail. It held that the grounds raised in the present application did not materially differ from those considered earlier.
Holding that no fresh ground had been made out to entertain the third anticipatory bail application, the Jharkhand High Court dismissed the petition and declined to grant anticipatory bail to the accused.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
