2026:JHHC:14286 --1-- A.B.A. No. 2390 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2390 of 2026 ---- Raju Majhi, S/o Bowa Majhi, aged about 47 years, R/o village – Pokhari, Dimna near Shiv Mandir, Deoghar, PO – Bhilai Pahari, PS – MGM, District – East Singhbhum, Jharkhand, 831012 .... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate :- Mr. Shwetang Kumar Tiwari, Advocate For the State :- Md. Zeeshan Ahmad, Advocate ---- 02/11.05.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Jadugora P.S. Case No.46 of 2025 for the alleged offences registered under Sections 316(2), 316(5), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 pending in the Court of learned A.C.J.M., Ghatsila. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has earlier moved before this Court in ABA No.6807 of 2025 which has been rejected. He further submits that on the fresh ground second anticipatory bail application has been filed. He then submits that in the trial of co-accused the informant has been examined and his statements have been brought on record as Annexure-2 in the petition. 2026:JHHC:14286 --2-- A.B.A. No. 2390 of 2026 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and submits that till date the petitioner has not cooperated in the investigation and has not appeared before the learned Court and that relates to trial of another co-accused. He further submits that in the said trial victim persons have not been examined as yet and there is no fresh ground to entertain the second anticipatory bail application. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. 5. Considering that the bail of the petitioner has been rejected on merit in ABA No.6807 of 2025 by order dated 05.02.2026. The petitioner is not cooperating in the investigation and co-accused is facing the trial and on the statement of the informant the petitioner is sought to take benefit of anticipatory bail and prima facie that relates to trial of another co-accused person. The case of the petitioner has already been dismissed on merit and the allegations are there of defalcating of Rs.20,13,765/- and the petitioner is said to be Sub-Post Master of Narwa Post Office. 6. There is no fresh ground to entertain the second anticipatory bail application and in view of that I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 11.05.2026 Sangam/