[2026:JHHC:576] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. no. 6846 of 2025 Dharmendra Kumar Mehta @Dharmendra Mehta @Dharmendra Kumar aged about 27 years, son of Suresh Mehta, resident of Vill-Pathra tola, Nawadih, P.O.- Kushanarayanpur, P.S.-Hussainabad, District- Palamau … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Ms. Amrita Sinha ,Adv. For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy , Spl. PP 03 / 09.01.2026 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Hussainabad P.S. Case No. 01 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this is the second journey of the petitioner with the prayer of anticipatory bail; as the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 16.08.2021 passed in ABA No. 5415 of 2021. It is next submitted that the fresh ground is that some relevant factors could not be brought to the notice of the court by the earlier counsel in the record in the said anticipatory bail application, hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned Spl. PP vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is absconding and he is not co-operating with the investigation of the case and because of the same, the final report could not be submitted by now and merely because some grounds could not be agitated earlier, is not a valid ground to review the order by which the anticipatory bail of petitioner has been rejected on merit by this Court. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the aforesaid facts of the case, the only ground the petitioner agitates in this anticipatory bail application is that in the earlier bail application, some grounds could not be raised by the earlier counsel for the petitioner in the. It is a settled principle of law, the same is not a ground to review the order by which, the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner has already been rejected on merit, since long, more so, when the petitioner is absconding for more than four years. Under such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to give the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage and the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is again rejected for the same reasons for which the same was rejected by the earlier order dated 16.08.2021 passed in ABA No. 5415 of 2021. (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Dated 09.01.2026 Smita/-