( 2025:JHHC:27855 ) -1- A.B.A. No. 5297 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 5297 of 2025 Shamsad Ansari, age 30 years, S/o Sattar Ansari, R/o Village- Sadhabe, P.O. & P.S. Kairo, Dist.- Lohardaga, Jharkhand … Petitioner -Versus- The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Petitioner : Ms. Aayushi Aman, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, Spl.P.P. ----- 02/12.09.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Kairo P.S. Case No.10/2025, registered for the offence under Sections 303(2), 317(2) of the BNS and Section 4/21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Rule 54 of the Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2004, pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., at Lohardaga. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has earlier moved before this Court for grant of his anticipatory bail in A.B.A. No.2843 of 2025 and the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 13.06.2025. She further submits that the fresh ground is there and in view of that, second anticipatory bail application has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submits that there is no fresh ground. He further submits that in the earlier anticipatory bail application, it was stated therein that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent, whereas, in the impugned order, it revealed that the petitioner has got three criminal antecedents and explanation to that effect was also ( 2025:JHHC:27855 ) -2- A.B.A. No. 5297 of 2025 called from the petitioner by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and that is why, the earlier anticipatory bail application was withdrawn. 5. It transpires that earlier anticipatory application was withdrawn by the petitioner without any liberty. Further, nothing has been shown before this Court as what are the changed circumstances in filing the present anticipatory bail application and in the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and, as such, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. 6. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. 7. It is open to the petitioner to surrender before the learned Court and if any petition is filed before the learned Court, the learned Court shall decide the same in accordance with law without being prejudiced to this order. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Ajay/