2026:JHHC:10379 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.634 of 2026 ----- 1. Prakash Mandal @ Prakash Yadav, son of Vakil Yadav @ Kapildev Mandal, resident of Boriya, P.O. Boriya, P.S. Ramgarh, District Dumka, State-Jharkhand. 2. Balu Kapri @ Bulu Kapri, son of Bhero Kapri, resident of Bouria Ramgarh, P.O. Bouria, P.S. Ramgarh, District-Dumka, State Jharkhand. .......... Petitioners. -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ........ Opp. Party. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Priyanshu Nilesh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, A.P.P. ----- Order No.05 Date: 10.04.2026 1. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 452, 379, 504 and 506 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No.80 of 2022 pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dumka. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners’ anticipatory bail application was earlier rejected by this Court vide order dated 2nd September, 2024 passed in A.B.A. No.4351 of 2024. By way of present anticipatory bail application, the petitioners have renewed their prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, primarily for the reason that the learned A.P.P. had presented the wrong fact before this Court as recorded in the order dated 2nd September, 2024 that the petitioner no.1 had two more criminal cases i.e. Ramgarh P.S. Case No.8 of 2006 and Ramgarh P.S. Case No.133 of 2008 against him, whereas the petitioner no.2 had one more criminal case i.e. Ramgarh P.S. Case No.25 of 2020 against him. It is 2026:JHHC:10379 2 further submitted that while rejecting the petitioners’ anticipatory bail application vide order dated 2nd September, 2024, this Court had also taken note of pendency of the said criminal cases. In fact, both the petitioners were already acquitted in the said cases prior to 2nd September, 2024 i.e., the date on which the petitioners’ anticipatory bail application was rejected by this Court. Under the said circumstance, the petitioners may be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail. 3. Vide order dated 20th March, 2026, the learned A.P.P. was directed to seek instruction as to whether the petitioners were already acquitted in the respective criminal cases prior to 2nd September, 2024 and also as to whether any independent witness has made a specific statement against the petitioners with respect to their role in committing the alleged offence. 4. The learned A.P.P. though admits that both the petitioners were already acquitted in the respective cases prior to 2nd September, 2024, yet on the basis of the case-diary he submits that four independent witnesses, namely, Manoj Mandal, Sitaram Mandal, Suraj Narayan Mandal and Lal Mandal, during investigation have clearly stated about the involvement of both the petitioners in commission of the alleged offence. They have also been identified by the said witnesses. Hence, the petitioners do not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that four independent witnesses have identified the petitioners during commission of the alleged offence and have also stated about their role in commission of 2026:JHHC:10379 3 the same and that the petitioners’ anticipatory bail application has earlier been rejected by this Court on merit, I see no ground to reconsider the same. 6. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application is rejected. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 10th April, 2026 Rohit/ Uploaded on 13.04.2026