[2026:JHHC:29744] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.5499 of 2026 ------ Anil Kumar Verma, aged about 55 years, Son of Ramjee Prasad, Resident of Ashok Kumar Nagar, Near Raj Kamal School, P.O. & P.S. – Dhansar, Distrit – Dhanbad. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Gautam Kr. Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Addl.P.P. ------ Order No:-08 Dated:-05-10-2026 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest in connection with Chouparan P.S. Case No.189 of 2014 registered under Sections 467, 468, 469, 471, 420, 414, 34 of Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail. This is the third journey of the petitioner with the prayer for anticipatory bail. Earlier, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner was rejected on merit by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.03.2017 passed in A.B.A. No. 370 of 2016 and subsequently, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner was rejected on merit by this Court vide order dated 07.07.2021 passed in A.B.A. No. 1901 of 2021. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the fresh ground is that in the meanwhile, though some more time has been elapsed yet charge sheet has not been submitted in this case. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is further submitted that the petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel appearing for the State on the other hand opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that the purported fresh ground agitated by the petitioner is, in fact, not a fresh ground at all and the petitioner has evaded his arrest by police for more than nine years and not co-operating with the investigation of the case; hence, his custodial interrogation is required during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail by way of reviewing of the earlier twice rejection order of anticipatory bail. Considering the fact that the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner has already been rejected on merit, this Court is of the considered view that the mere fact that the investigation has not yet been completed when the petitioner himself is not co-operating with the investigation of the case and absconding since last nine years, is not a sufficient ground to review the earlier order by which the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner was rejected on merit. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the above- named petitioner is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the order dated 07.07.2021 passed in A.B.A. No. 1901 of 2021 by this Court. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated:-05.10.2026 Saroj/