( 2026:JHHC:19651 ) -1- A.B.A. No. 3462 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3462 of 2026 Sakib Samar @ Md. Sakib Samar, aged about 30 years, son of Md. Samruddin @ Md. Samsuddin, resident of Castair Town, P.O. Deoghar, P.S. Deoghar, District- Deoghar, Jharkhand … Petitioner -Versus- The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate Mr. Awanish Shekhar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shashi Kumar Verma, A.P.P. ----- 02/06.07.2026 Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Deoghar Town P.S. Case No.277 of 2025, registered for the offence under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 351(4), 352, 303(2), 125(a), 3(5) of the BNS, 2023, pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar. 3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has earlier moved before this Court in A.B.A. No.5387 of 2025, which was dismissed vide order dated 13.11.2025. He further submits that on the fresh ground, this anticipatory bail application has been filed as one co-accused person has been granted regular bail by the learned Sessions Judge. On these grounds, he submits that the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner may kindly be allowed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and submits that on merit, the first anticipatory bail application of the petitioner was dismissed and there is nothing new to entertain this second anticipatory bail application. On these grounds, he submits that the prayer for anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. ( 2026:JHHC:19651 ) -2- A.B.A. No. 3462 of 2026 5. The petitioner has earlier moved before this Court in A.B.A. No.5387 of 2025, which was dismissed on merit vide order dated 13.11.2025. The parameters of regular bail or anticipatory bail are different on the ground of grant of regular bail of another co-accused and on that ground, this second anticipatory bail application has been filed. In that view of the matter, there is no fresh ground to entertain this second anticipatory bail application. 6. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and, as such, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is, hereby, rejected. 7. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. 8. However, if the petitioner moves before the learned Court by way of filing regular bail, the same will be decided in accordance with law without being prejudiced to this order. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated: 6th July, 2026 Ajay/