2025:JHHC:30469 Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A No.4066 of 2025 Manohar Kumar Singh, aged about 40 years, S/o Anil Kumar Singh, resident of Adarsh Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Tatisilway, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Priyanka Singh, aged about 28 years old, W/o Manohar Kumar Singh, D/o Anil Ram, R/o Village Aliganj, P.O. & P.S. Chandradeep, District- Jammui, Bihar. .… Opposite Parties Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA For the Petitioner : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Adv. For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, Advocate. Order No.03/Dated- 25th September, 2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This application has been preferred by the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail, as the petitioner has reasonable apprehension of being arrested in connection with Tatisilway P.S. Case No. 35 of 2022 registered under Sections 323, 341, 506, 379, 498A read with Section 34 of the I.P.C and under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is the second anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner on fresh ground. It is submitted that in view of order passed by this Hon'ble Court in A.B.A. No. 11325 of 2022 vide order dated 04.03.2024, the bail application was found not maintainable and it was observed that there is no apprehension of arrest to the petitioner because he has complied with the notice under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. issued by the investigating officer and also furnished bond to appear as and when required by the investigating officer. It is further submitted that due to wrong advice given by the counsel for the petitioner before the district court, the petitioner was advised to file a fresh anticipatory bail application after submission of charge-sheet and the learned 2025:JHHC:30469 Page | 2 Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 11.06.2025 passed in A.B.A. No.1210 of 2025 quoting the order of this court passed in A.B.A. No. 11325 of 2022 dated 04.03.2024 that the prayer for anticipatory bail has been dismissed as not maintainable and also Bailable warrant has been issued against the petitioner, therefore, rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Now, N.B.W. has also been issued against the petitioner by the concerned trial court. Therefore, petitioner is apprehending his arrest in this case without any fault on his part. Therefore, appropriate order may be passed. 4.Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party vehemently opposed the points of arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that once the prayer of anticipatory bail of the petitioner has been rejected, then he is not entitled to be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail. Moreover, N.B.W. has also been issued after submission of charge-sheet, but he is not complying the order of the learned trial court. Hence, this petition is fit to be dismissed. 5. It appears that the petitioner is accused for the offences under Sections 323, 341, 506, 379, 498A read with Section 34 of the I.P.C and under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and happens to be the husband of the informant. There is no doubt that during the course of investigation, petitioner has cooperated in the investigation of the case and was released on furnishing bond before investigating officer for his appearance as and when required. Therefore, his prayer for anticipatory bail was dismissed by this this court vide order passed in A.B.A. No. 11325 of 2022 dated 04.03.2024 as not maintainable because there was no apprehension of arrest. It further appears that the circumstances have been turned drastically due to fresh filing of anticipatory bail application by the petitioner instead of 2025:JHHC:30469 Page | 3 appearing before the concerned trial court after submission of charge-sheet. It appears that due to wrong advice of the counsel, such state of affair have been happened. Therefore, without expressing any view on merits, the petitioner is directed to appear before the concerned trial court and pray for regular bail which shall be considered on the same day and allow in view of the guidelines propounded by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Satender Kumar Antil versus C.B.I & Anr. 6. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) 25th September, 2025 Amar/- Uploaded