2025:JHHC:14026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.551 of 2025 ------ Ashish Alok, Age-26 years, son of Aklal Mahto, resident of Village- Rangamati, P.O.-Dumma, P.S.-Jamua, District-Giridih, Jharkhand …. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Prashant Kumar Rai, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanat Kumar Jha, Addl.P.P ------ Order No.12 Dated- 09.05.2025 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Apprehending his arrest in connection with Saria P.S. Case No. 159 of 2022 instituted under Sections 420, 409 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner was rejected thrice on merits vide orders dated 21.03.2023, 13.10.2023 and 26.07.2024 passed in A.B.A. No.10589 of 2022, A.B.A. No.7100 of 2023 and A.B.A. No.1907 of 2024 respectively. It is further submitted that this is the fourth anticipatory bail application, which has been filed by the petitioner with fresh and new ground that one co-accused, Anil Kumar Yadav, whose anticipatory bail application along with the present petitioner vide A.B.A. No.10589 of 2022 was rejected on 21.03.2023 but later on the said Anil Kumar Yadav was granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 02.02.2024 passed in A.B.A. No.6573 of 2023. It is further submitted that another co-accused, Angad Kumar Pandey, who had issued gate-pass of the go-down for transportation of incriminating articles vide Sl Nos.2178 and 7139 dated 21.08.2022 and 25.08.2022 respectively for black marketing of wheat, has been granted anticaptory bail by this Court vide order dated 03.07.2023 passed in 2025:JHHC:14026 2 A.B.A. No.10880 of 2022. It is further submitted that the case of the present petitioner stands on better footing and he has also complied the notice of section 41(A) of Cr.P.C by sending his reply through post. Petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the investigation of the case and abide all terms and conditions imposed upon him by this Court. Hence, the petitioner may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail. 4. While 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 petitioner has never complied with the notice under section 41(A) of Cr.P.C nor cooperated in the investigation. It is further submitted that the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner has rightly been rejected thrice on merits and now this is the fourth anticipatory bail application having no fresh and new ground taken by the petitioner, hence, the present anticipatory bail application is not entertainable at all and the case of other co-accused persons stands on different footing, hence, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for the purpose of investigation of this case. Therefore, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner may be rejected. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also in view of the facts that earlier on three occasions, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner has been rejected on merits and his prayer for anticipatory bail does not stand on similar footing with the co-accused persons and also there is no fresh and new ground to entertain this anticipatory bail application. Hence, I am not inclined to extent the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the prayer of anticipatory bail of petitioner is rejected. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Pappu/