( 2026:JHHC:24385 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B. A. No. 4529 of 2026 Avinash Jha @ Avinash Kumar Jha, aged about 30 years, son of Srikant Jha, resident of RZ 162, Jai Vihar Phase-2, P.O. Najafgarh, P.S. Najafgarh, District Delhi (West), (Delhi) PIN-110043. ...... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .…. … Opposite Party -------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner :Mr. Binod Singh, Advocate :Mr. Anmol Deepak, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. For the Informant :-Kumar Nischay, Advocate 02/ 14.08.2026: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the informant. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Giddi P.S. Case No. 50 of 2025, registered under sections 126(2), 127(2), 115(2), 117(2), 318 (4), 85, 352, 351(2), 3 (5) of BNS, 2023 and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Hazaribagh. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has earlier moved before this Court in A.B.A. No.426 of 2026 which was dismissed as with withdrawn by order dated 05.05.2026 with liberty to move before the learned court on the strength of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51. He next submits that now the second anticipatory bail application has been filed on the fresh ground. He submits that the petitioner is son-in-law of the informant and in view of that the anticipatory bail may kindly be allowed. 4. Learned counsels for the State and informant jointly oppose the prayer and submit that the petitioner has taken liberty to move before ( 2026:JHHC:24385 ) the learned Court in earlier anticipatory bail application however, he has not moved before the learned court and in view of that the anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner has earlier moved anticipatory bail application which was dismissed as with withdrawn with liberty to move before the learned court on the strength of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) however, the petitioner has not moved before the learned court. All these arguments were available when the earlier anticipatory bail application was heard. There is no fresh ground to entertain the second anticipatory bail application. There is no doubt that second anticipatory bail application can be entertained if the fresh grounds are there however, if the fresh grounds are not there, second anticipatory bail application cannot be entertained. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is hereby rejected. Dt.14.08.2026 ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) satyarthi-