2026:JHHC:2357 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.7475 of 2025 ------ Rajesh Paswan, aged about 33 years, Son of Jagdish Paswan, Resident of Village – Kalyanpur, P/o – Saranda, P/s – Birni, Kalyanpur, Dist. – Giridih. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... ....Opposite Party ------ Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha (2), Adv. For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Sinha, Addl. P.P ------ Order No.04/Dated- 29.01.2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Apprehending his arrest in connection with Birni P.S. Case No. 31 of 2023 instituted under Sections 379/414/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 30(ii) of Coal Mines Act, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail. 3. 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 the prayer for anticipatory bail application being A.B.A. No.4049 of 2023 was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 03.07.2023. It is further submitted that the earlier bail application was rejected without obtaining case diary, therefore, petitioner has renewed his prayer for 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. 4. 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 is still absconding and not cooperating in the investigation and after lapse of two years, he has again filed this anticipatory bail without any cogent reasons and any fresh and new grounds. Therefore, the present second anticipatory bail 2026:JHHC:2357 application is not fit to be entertained and liable to be dismissed. Hence, petitioner may not be extended privilege of anticipatory bail. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of earlier rejection of the prayer for anticipatory bail application of the petitioner on merits and renewal of the prayer for anticipatory bail without any fresh ground, I do not feel inclined to admit the petitioner on bail. Therefore, the prayer for second anticipatory bail of the petitioner stands rejected. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Dated: 29th January, 2026 Sachin/