( 2026:JHHC:18053 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B. A. No. 3193 of 2026 1. Birendra Yadav, aged about 36 years, son of Hiraman Yadav, resident of Rohmar, P.O. Gangpur, P.S. Gidhour, District-Chatra (Jharkahnd) 2. Rajesh Yadav, aged about 29 years, son of Hiraman Yadav, resident of Rohmar, P.O. Gangpur, P.S. Gidhour, District-Chatra (Jharkhand) ...... … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .…. … Opposite Party -------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioners :Mr. Shailesh Kr. Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, Spl. P.P. 02/ 22.06.2026: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Gidhour P.S. Case No. 52 of 2025, registered under sections 223, 238, 317(5), BNS and section 4, 21 of MMDR Act, 4, 54 JMMCR Act and under sections 7, 9, 13 of JMPIMT & Storage Act and under section 192 of Motor Vehicle Act, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chatra. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have earlier moved before this Court in A.B.A. No.6224 of 2025 which was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 30.10.2025. He submits that on the fresh ground second anticipatory bail application has been filed and in view of that the anticipatory bail may kindly be allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits that what has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners was already argued at the time of hearing of earlier anticipatory bail. The petitioners without moving the learned Court has directly filed anticipatory bail application before this Court. There is no fresh ground in the second ( 2026:JHHC:18053 ) anticipatory bail application and in that view of the matter the anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. 5. What has been argued in course of argument by the learned counsel for the petitioners was already argued at the time of hearing of earlier anticipatory bail application however, the earlier application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to move before the learned court by filing regular bail and further the petitioner without moving before the learned Sessions court has filed this anticipatory bail application directly before this Court and there is no fresh ground in the second anticipatory bail application and on the same ground the second anticipatory bail application has been filed. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is dismissed. Dt.22.06.2026 ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) satyarthi-