2026:JHHC:6811 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 5066 of 2025 Dharamjit Singh, aged about 40 years, S/o Sanjit Singh, R/o Keska, P.O. & P.S. Tundi, District: Dhanbad. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opp. Party-State : None --- 13/13.03.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Nobody appears on behalf of the State, although a counter affidavit has been filed by the State. 3. This application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Sindri P.S. Case No. 114 of 2020 for the alleged offence registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 353, 307, 120(B), 188, 268, 379, 269, 270, 271 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the anticipatory bail of the petitioner has been rejected earlier vide order dated 31.05.2021 in A.B.A. No. 2063 of 2021 and the petitioner was directed to surrender before the learned court within a period of two weeks. 5. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to paragraph 6 of the anticipatory bail application and has submitted that after the order of this Court, the petitioner tried to surrender before the police, but he was not allowed since there was no warrant of arrest as against him and in the meantime there was Covid-19 situation. The lawyer of the petitioner instructed him to appear only if there was any coercive action by the court at the instance by the police. Learned 2026:JHHC:6811 2 counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that it has also been mentioned in paragraph 6 of this petition that no such thing happened after rejection of the bail order dated 31.05.2021 and the police never sought for the appearance of the petitioner for any kind of interrogation. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with a notice under Section 41(A) of Cr.P.C on 03.05.2025 along with other co-accused persons and the petitioner Personally appeared and submitted his reply on 06.05.2025. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the other co-accused persons namely Pradip Singh Rawani and Nayan Acharaya Thakur have been allowed anticipatory bail in A.B.A. No. 3985 of 2025 vide order dated 01.08.2025 by observing that once the said petitioners had appeared before the investigating officer pursuant to notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS, there should not be any apprehension that the petitioners will be arrested. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that another co-accused namely Barun Kumar Murmu has been granted anticipatory bail by the learned court of Sessions in A.B.P No. 2461 of 2024 vide order dated 09.09.2024. Similarly, two other co-accused persons have also been granted anticipatory bail by the learned court vide order dated 04.03.2025 and 17.04.2025. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no criminal antecedent of the petitioner and there is no bar in filing second anticipatory bail application, on account of changed circumstances. He has relied upon an order dated 06.12.2024 passed in A.B.A. No. 4449 of 2024 wherein the second anticipatory bail application was entertained. However, on perusal of the said order it appears that the second anticipatory bail application was entertained on the ground that prayer for anticipatory bail was earlier rejected by observing that the petitioner of the said case had criminal antecedent although, there was no criminal antecedent against the petitioner. 9. A counter affidavit has been filed in the instant case wherein it has been stated that a prayer for issuance of warrant against the 2026:JHHC:6811 3 petitioner was made vide letter dated 13.12.2021 bearing memo No. 2014 of 2021 and the investigating officer has also been taking steps and raids has been conducted to arrest the petitioner, considering the gravity of offence and ultimately the warrant of arrest has been obtained on 18.02.2026. 10. This Court finds that the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner was rejected on merits by observing that as per the allegation the petitioner was the leader who was leading a mob of 200 motorcycles. The petitioner was directed to surrender within two weeks, but he did not surrender and no petition was filed seeking extension of time to surrender. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 11. According, this anticipatory bail application is rejected. 12. Let a copy of this be communicated to the court concerned through ‘FAX/E-mail’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 13.03.2026 Rakesh/- Uploaded on:-13.03.2026