2025:JHHC:12369 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A No. 2406 of 2025 ------ Ujjawal Kumar Agarwal @ Ujjwal Kumar Agrawal, aged about 32 years, s/o Akhileshwar Prasad Agarwal, r/o village Shahpur, PO Shapur, PS Shahpur, Dist. Palamau, Jharkhand .... .... …. Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand ... ........Opp. Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ------ For the Appellants : Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate ------ Order No.02/Dated: 25.04.2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Apprehending his arrest in connection with Dhurki P.S. Case No. 66 of 20022 instituted under Sections 467, 468, 471, 406, 420, 409/34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail. 3. Earlier the anticipatory bail of the petitioner was rejected. He renews his prayer on the ground that two witnesses have declared hostile and there is no direct allegation against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is an Assistant Engineer in DRDA, Garhwa and there was allegation against the petitioner that he has committed monetary irregularities in MANERGA Scheme. It is submitted that subsequently an enquiry was conducted by the Executive Engineer but no irregularity and dues were found against the petitioner. He further submits that similarly situated co-accused person has been granted anticipatory bail. 5. Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that earlier anticipatory bail application of the petitioner has been rejected on merits. He further submits that there is serious allegation of commission of fraud, forgery and criminal breach 2025:JHHC:12369 of trust. He further submits that investigation is still going on against the petitioner, hence there is no fresh and new ground for entertaining this application which may not be allowed. 6. Considering the rival contention of the parties and in view of the fact that the earlier anticipatory bail application of the petitioner was rejected by this Court on merits and the ground taken by the petitioner does not appear to be fresh and reasonable ground to entertain the second anticipatory bail application. 7 Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application stands dismissed. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Anjali/