2025:JHHC:33999 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.6219 of 2025 ------ 1. Basant Kumar Singh, son of Late Gauri Singh, resident of Village Ichak, P.O. Gangpur, P.S. Gidhour, District Chatra. 2. Ramchandra Singh, son of Late Gauri Singh, resident of Village Ichak, P.O. Gangpur, P.S. Gidhour, District Chatra. 3. Nitesh Kumar Singh @ Nitesh Singh, son of Awadh Singh, resident of Village Ichak, P.O. Gangpur, P.S. Gidhour, District Chatra. 4. Subodh Kumar Singh @ Subodh Singh, son of Awadh Singh, resident of Village Ichak, P.O. Gangpur, P.S. Gidhour, District Chatra. 5. Sani Kumar Singh @ Sanni Kumar Singh, son of Basant Singh, resident of Village Ichak, P.O. Gangpur, P.S. Gidhour, District Chatra. … … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand. … … Opposite Party ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sushant Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Ruby Pandey, A.P.P. Mr. Shekhar Prasad Gupta, Advocate ----- 02/ 14.11.2025 Heard the parties. 2. The petitioners have filed this Anticipatory Bail Applications under Sections 482 and 484 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, apprehending their arrest in connection with Gidhour P.S. Case No.38 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147,148,149,341,323,379,385 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Chatra. 3. This is the second attempt of the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail. In the first attempt, the petitioners were unsuccessful, as their prayer for anticipatory bail got rejected by 2025:JHHC:33999 2 this Court vide order dated 29.04.2025 passed in A.B.A. No.5662 of 2024. 4. Learned A.P.P. representing the State and learned counsel representing the informant oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail. 5. Now the petitioners renew their prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that one of the independent witnesses has filed an affidavit stating that nothing has happened. This is not a ground to reconsider the earlier order by which the anticipatory bail application of the petitioners was rejected. Further, the petitioners obtaining an affidavit from an independent witness, wherein the independent witness stated that nothing has happened in his presence, clearly suggests that the petitioners are trying to tamper with the evidence, more so this is not a ground to allow this anticipatory bail application. 6. Accordingly, this Anticipatory Bail Application stands dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 14th November, 2025 Prashant. Cp-3