( 2026:JHHC:22105 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B. A. No. 3686 of 2026 Niranjan Kumar @ Niranjan Kumar Sinha, aged about 29 years, son of Nagendra Kumar Sinha, resident of village-Chhatarpur, P.O. and P.S. Chhatarpur, District-Palamau, Jharkhand ...... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .…. … Opposite Party -------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner :Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, A.P.P. For the State : Mr. Achinto Sen, A.P.P. 02/ 27.07.2026: The matter relates to Chhattarpur P.S. Case No. 241 of 2020, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1770 of 2023, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Palamau at Daltonganj. 2. Office has raised question of maintainability of the present anticipatory bail application. 3. The petitioner has earlier moved in A.B.A. No. 5684 of 2021 which was allowed by order dated 19.08.2021 by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court with a condition to pay Rs. 10 lacs as victim compensation to the O.P. No.2 against which the petitioner has moved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Cr.) No. 7536 of 2021 which was disposed of vide order dated 08.10.2021 directing the petitioner to move an application before the Hon’ble High Court for modification of the order. Thereafter the petitioner has filed Cr.M.P. No. 2940 of 2021 which was permitted to be withdrawn vide order dated 07.01.2022. In the said Cr.M.P which was meant for modification of the order dated 19.08.2021 was dismissed as withdrawn with the following observations:- “Heard the parties through video conferencing. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed under section 482 Cr.P.C by the petitioner with a prayer for modification of the order dated 19.08.2021, in A.B.A. No. 5684 of 2021. It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has made a false statement before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that without his consent, the High Court while granting anticipatory bail to him directed him to deposit Rs.10,00,000/- as ad interim victim compensation in favour of the informant though in fact the said order for payment ( 2026:JHHC:22105 ) of ad interim victim compensation was made by this court only upon his undertaking to pay the said amount before this court. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner does not want to press this criminal miscellaneous petition, hence he seeks permission to withdraw the same. Perusal of the order dated 08.10.2021, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 7536 of 2021 reveals that in the said order, it has been mentioned that consequent upon the said false submission made by the petitioner before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the Hon’ble Apex Court directed the petitioner to file a petition before this Court to rectify the error but since, it is fairly submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that in fact the false submission has been made by the petitioner before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the said Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 7536 of 2021 that the petitioner has never consented for depositing the amount Rs.10,00,000/- as ad interim victim compensation. Hence he seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this criminal miscellaneous petition. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justification to pass any fresh order and accordingly, as prayed for by the petitioner, this criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed as withdrawn. The trial court is directed to take all coercive steps for apprehension of the petitioner for facing the trial. “ 4. In view of above order, it transpires that false submission was made before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said Cr.M.P in view of the clear admission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner appearing in the said Cr.M.P. and thereafter, the above order was passed. 5. Thus, petitioner has already been granted anticipatory bail by order dated 19.08.2021 and that order has not been altered as yet and now the second anticipatory bail application has been filed. The office has rightly pointed out question of maintainability of second anticipatory bail and earlier anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner is still existing and in view of that the office objection is confirmed. 6. This anticipatory bail application is dismissed as not maintainable. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of. Dt.27.07.2026 ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) satyarthi-