IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.129 of 2025 ------ Manoj Mandal, Aged about 39 years, Son of Girdhari Mandal, Resident of Village Jhitari, P.O. & P.S. Taratand, Dist. Giridih. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... ....Opposite Party ------ Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Govind Ray Karan, Adv. For the State : Mr. Subodh Kumar Dubey, Addl. P.P ------ Order No.02/Dated- 17.01.2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Apprehending his arrest in connection with Bengabad P.S. Case No. 189 of 2021 instituted under Sections 414/272/273 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 47(a) of Excise Act, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail. 3. As per F.I.R., it is alleged that during course of patrolling a vehicle bearing Registration No. BR 10J 0301 was seized while transporting illicit 1296 pieces of foreign liquor kept in 53 packets worth Rs.4,57,960/-. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all rather he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that this is second anticipatory bail application of the petitioner and earlier anticipatory bail application being A.B.A. No.612 of 2023 has been rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 24.07.2023 and present second anticipatory bail application has been filed on fresh ground that the other co-accused Mithun Mandal whose bail application was also earlier rejected by the same bail application and he was subsequently granted anticipatory bail. Petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the investigation of the case and also abide by all terms and conditions imposed by this Court in the matter of granting anticipatory bail. Hence, the petitioner may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail. 5. On the other hand, learned Addl. P.P appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submitted that the facts reiterated by the petitioner as a fresh ground was all along known to him but the present anticipatory bail application has been filed after lapse of one year and three months from the date of passing the earlier order and the petitioner is also not cooperating in the investigation of the case. The Court has already passed the order to surrender before the Court below and prays for regular bail. Therefore, the present second anticipatory bail application is not fit to be entertained and liable to be dismissed. Hence, petitioner may not be extended privilege of anticipatory bail. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the fact that petitioner is not vigilant in the matter of agitating his right and also not diligent in cooperating in the investigation and remain dormant for one year and three months. Therefore, his second anticipatory bail application appears to be groundless. Accordingly, the prayer of second anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Sachin