( 2026:JHHC:11753 ) -1- A.B.A. No. 6928 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 6928 of 2025 1. Shanker Lohar @ Shanker Lohra @ Shankar Lohar, aged about 59 years 2. Etwa Lohar @ Etwa Lohra @ Etwa Lolhara, aged about 48 years Petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 are sons of Late Aprudh Lohra 3. Deepak Lohra @ Deepak Lohra, aged about 32 years, son of Late Lodhar Lohar All resident of Bhithatoli, Similiya, P.S. Ratu, Dist.- Ranchi, Jharkhand … Petitioners -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Ravinesh Kumar Thakur, son of Late Bindeshwar Thakur, resident of Qr. No.C-5/18, Secretariat Colony, Hinoo, P.S. Doranda, Dist. Ranchi … Opposite Parties ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha (4), Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mrs. Vani Kumari, Advocate ----- 05/22.04.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.6310/2019, registered for the offence under Sections 120(B)/420 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had earlier moved before this Court in A.B.A. No.844 of 2023, which was disposed of in light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 as well as the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Birendra Jha @ Virendra Jha v. State of Jharkhand, reported in 2001 (2) JLJR 76, however, the petitioners have not been able to surrender within two weeks. He further ( 2026:JHHC:11753 ) -2- A.B.A. No. 6928 of 2025 submits that thereafter the petitioners filed Cr.M.P. No.1532 of 2025 for modification of the said order and the said Cr.M.P. was disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file fresh anticipatory bail application before appropriate Court. He next submits that thereafter the petitioners filed anticipatory bail petition before the learned Sessions Judge, which has been rejected. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State and informant jointly opposed the prayer and submit that the order of this Court passed in A.B.A. No.844 of 2023 has not been complied with by the petitioners. 5. It has been pointed out that the petitioners are working in other State as Labourers and by order dated 12.05.2023 passed in A.B.A. No.844 of 2023, the order is already there in favour of the petitioners and in that view of the matter, the petitioners are directed to surrender before the learned Court within two weeks from today and the learned Court shall dispose of their application by complying the direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation (supra). 6. With the above observation, this anticipatory bail application is disposed of. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated: 22nd April, 2026 Ajay/