2026:JHHC:24453 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 4625 of 2026 ------ Laxman Jee Yadav, aged about 39 years, son of Late Bachha Jee Prasad, resident of Durga Mandap Road, Hari Narayan Nagar, Barmasia, P.O. and P.S. Dhansar, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Deomani, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Amitabh Prasad, Advocate Mr. Ajay Kumar Yadav, Advocate ------ 02/14.08.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Dhanbad P.S. Case No.306 of 2019, registered for the offence under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477(A), 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has earlier moved before this court for grant of anticipatory bail in A.B.A. No.4385 of 2025 which was dismissed by the order dated 07.10.2025. He submits that on the fresh ground, the present anticipatory bail application has been filed and after the departmental proceeding, a sum of Rs.1,48,500/- has been recovered. To buttress his argument, he refers to Annexure 5. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State and the informant jointly oppose the prayer and submit that there are no fresh ground to entertain the second anticipatory bail application and further the petitioner is having criminal antecedents. On these grounds, they submit that anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. 5. From the record, it transpires that the petitioner has earlier moved before this court for grant of anticipatory bail in A.B.A. No.4385 of 2026:JHHC:24453 2025 which was dismissed by the order dated 07.10.2025 and Annexure 5 is a document which was also available at the time of deciding the said A.B.A. and in view of that there is no fresh ground to entertain the second anticipatory bail application and the petitioner happens to be Government employee and cheated the innocent consumers and having criminal antecedent, 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 14.08.2026 Anit Uploaded 18.08.2026