2026:JHHC:18626 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3441 of 2026 Ram Prakash Choudhary, son of late Taleshwar Choudhary … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through Anti-Corruption Bureau … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate : Mr. Ritesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate : Mr. Nillohit Choubey, Advocate : Mr. Prakhar Harit, Advocate --- 05/25.06.2026 Heard the learned counsels for the parties. 2. This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the petitioner who is apprehending arrest in connection with A.C.B. P.S. Case No. 11/2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of Indian Penal Code and section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, said to be pending in the court of learned ADJ-II Cum SPL Judge Vigilance (ACB), Hazaribag. 3. Learned counsel for the opposite party- ACB has raised objection to the maintainability of the present Anticipatory Bail application and he submits that Anticipatory Bail application of the petitioner was earlier permitted to be withdrawn vide order dated 30.04.2026 passed in A.B.A. No. 270 of 2026 and thereafter, with the same impugned order, the petitioner has filed the present Anticipatory Bail application on 22.05.2026. 4. Learned counsel for the ACB has further referred to the aforesaid order of withdrawal passed in A.B.A. No. 270 of 2026 and has submitted that the order of withdrawal itself reveals that when this Court was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, the counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the said Anticipatory Bail application. The learned counsel submits that order dated 30.04.2026 passed in A.B.A. No. 270 of 2026 itself reveals that 2026:JHHC:18626 2 the Court had disclosed its mind that the court was not inclined and therefore, for all practical purposes, the dismissal of the earlier Anticipatory Bail application is on merits. 5. To this, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present case be decided on merits. 6. The operative portion of the order dated 30.04.2026 passed in A.B.A. No. 270 of 2026 is quoted as under: “3. After some argument, when this court was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, learned senior counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this anticipatory bail application. 4. Permission is accorded. 5. This anticipatory bail application is dismissed as withdrawn.” 7. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, the perusal of the order passed in A.B.A. No. 270 of 2026 reveals that this Court had applied its mind after hearing the parties and when this Court was not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, the prayer for withdrawal of the said Anticipatory Bail application was made and permission was accorded. This Court finds that no fresh ground for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner has been argued or made out and accordingly, this Court is not inclined to entertain this 2nd Anticipatory Bail application and hence, this 2nd anticipatory bail application is dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:25.06.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:25.06.2026