[ 2026:JHHC:14946] -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2597 of 2026 Md. Jamal, aged about 32 years, son of Md. Minhaj, resident of village Mael, P.O. & P.S. Rajrappa, Chitarpur, District: Ramgarh. ..... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... … Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. V.P. Pathak, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Shree Prakash Jha, A.P.P. ------ 04/ 14.05.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Rajrappa P.S. Case No. 165 of 2025, registered for the offence under Sections 111(2)(b), 305(a) and 331(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending in the court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that earlier the petitioner has moved before this court in A.B.A. No. 919 of 2026, which was dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to the petitioner to move before the learned court on the strength of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Versus Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51. He next submits that on the fresh ground, the second anticipatory bail application has been filed, in view of that the privilege of anticipatory bail may kindly be provided to the petitioner. 4. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the prayer and submits that earlier on merits, the anticipatory bail [ 2026:JHHC:14946] -2- application was dismissed as withdrawn and the grounds taken in this petition were already there at the time of withdrawal of the earlier petition and no fresh ground has been stated in the present petition. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. 5. It transpires that earlier the petitioner has withdrawn the earlier application and the said application was withdrawn after arguing the matter on merits and further in course of argument, no fresh ground has been argued to entertain this second anticipatory bail application. 6. Since the earlier anticipatory bail application has already been dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to the petitioner to move before the learned court on the on the strength of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Versus Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51, the second anticipatory bail application is not maintainable in absence of any fresh ground. As such, this petition is dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated:-14.05.2026 Amitesh/-