[ 2026:JHHC:27949] -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 5151 of 2026 Annu Devi, aged about 34 years, wife of Manoj Ram Nishad, resident of Jagannathpur, P.O. Jagannathpur, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi. ..... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... … Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Navin Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Kumar Pawan, A.C. to S.C.(M)-III. ------ 06/ 16.09.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending her arrest in connection with Gua P.S. Case No. 43 of 2025, for offence registered under Sections 316(2), 316(5), 318(4) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending in court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has earlier moved before this court in A.B.A. No. 517 of 2026, which was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 06.02.2026. He next submits that thereafter the petitioner has replied to the notice issued under Section 35(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and in view of that fresh ground is made out for filing the present anticipatory bail application. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be provided to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the prayer and submits that this is the second anticipatory bail application and what has been argued before this court in the present case, that ground was already available at the time of hearing of the first [ 2026:JHHC:27949] -2- anticipatory bail application and in spite of that second anticipatory bail application has been filed. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner has earlier moved before this court in A.B.A. No. 517 of 2026, which was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 06.02.2026 and the ground of giving reply to the notice issued under Section 35(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was already there and in view of that there is no change in the circumstance to entertain this second anticipatory bail application. 6. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, named above. Accordingly, her prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. 7. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner has submitted her reply to the notice issued under Section 35(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, it is open for the petitioner to appear before the learned court by way of filing the appropriate petition. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated:-16.09.2026 Amitesh/-