[2026:JHHC:21644] -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 4021 of 2026 1. Manoranjan Verma, aged about 39 years, S/o Roshan Verma. 2. Bhagirath Verma, aged about 51 years, S/o Arjun Verma. 3. Pankaj Verma, aged about 37 years, S/o Kartik Verma. 4. Lilambar Verma @ Nilambar Verma, aged about 36 years, S/o Nageswar Verma. 5. Ranjit Verma @ Ranjeet Verma, aged about 42 years, S/o Kripal Verma. 6. Sanjay Verma, aged about 48 years, S/o Tetu Verma. 7. Mithlesh Kumar Verma @ Mithilesh Verma, aged about 32 years, S/o Avesh Verma 8. Manoj Kumar Verma @ Manoj Verma, aged about 40 years, S/o Narayan Verma. All are residents of Village-Budhibagicha, P.O.- Saptar, P.S.- Madhupur, District- Deoghar. ..... … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand. ..... … Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate. : Ms Shivani Bhardwaj, Advocate : Mr. Ritwik Raj, Advocate : Mr. Shubham Kumar, Advocate. : Mr. K.S. Chhabra, Advocate. For the State : Mrs. Malsi Pathak, A.C. to P.P. ------ 05/ 22.07.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P for the State. 2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Madhupur P.S. Case No. 200 of 2025, registered for the offence under Sections 190, 191(2), 121(1), 121(2), 61(2), 132, 324(4), 351(2), 352, 109 read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending in [2026:JHHC:21644] -2- the court of learned A.C.J.M., Madhupur. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have earlier moved before this court in A.B.A. No. 3083 of 2026, which was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 16.06.2026 by this court with the liberty to move before the learned court by way of filing the proper petition. He next submits that the present second anticipatory bail application has been filed on the new ground that the caused injury is said to be simple in nature. On this ground, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be provided to the petitioners. 4. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the prayer and submits that by the order dated 16.06.2026, the petitioners have withdrawn the earlier anticipatory bail application with the liberty to move before the learned court by way of filing the appropriate petition and there is no fresh ground to entertain the second anticipatory bail application. 5. There is no doubt that in the changed circumstance, the second anticipatory bail application can be maintained, however, in the present case, there is no changed circumstance and what has been argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, that were already present in the earlier anticipatory bail petition. 6. In view of the above, no fresh ground is made out to entertain this anticipatory bail application. As such, this petition is dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated:-22.07.2026 Amitesh/-