RAVI KUMAR DANGI @ RAVI RANJAN KUMAR v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
A.B.A./3524/2026 · 2026-07-06
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 19034 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 19034 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2026:JHHC:19713 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 3524 of 2026
------ Ravi Kumar Dangi @ Ravi Ranjan Kumar, aged about 23 years, son of Ashok Dangi, resident of Village Kasiyadih, Tikar, P.O. Tikar, P.S. and District Chatra
.... .... …. Petitioner
Versus The State of Jharkhand
.... .... .... Opposite Party
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
For the Petitioner
: Mr. Sushant Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the State
: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, A.P.P.
------
02/06.07.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
2.
The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 738 of 2024, registered for the offence under Sections 33, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 2023, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra.
3.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has earlier moved before this court in A.B.A. No.4284 of 2025 which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to move before the learned court. He further submits that on the fresh ground, present anticipatory bail application has been filed and in view of that the same may kindly be allowed.
4.
Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer and submits that there is no fresh ground to entertain the second anticipatory bail application. He further submits that after hearing on merit, the said anticipatory bail application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to move before the learned court.
5.
Considering that the petitioner has earlier moved before this court in A.B.A. No.4284 of 2025 which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to move before the learned court and that too after some argument and there is no fresh ground mentioned in the petition to entertain second anticipatory bail application of the petitioner, in the attending facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6.
Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby, rejected.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Dated 06.07.2026 Anit Uploaded 07.07.2026