2026:JHHC:12750 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1958 of 2026 ------ Ajay Mandal @ Ajay Kumar Mandal, son of Dilip Mandal, resident of Village Padampur, P.O. Padampur, P.S. Kharsawan, District Seraikela-Kharsawan, Jharkhand .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner : Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, Advocate For the State : Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, A.P.P. ------ 02/30.04.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Seraikella P.S. Case No. 101 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. No.750 of 2025, registered for the offence under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 274 and 275 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 47(a), 47(d), 47(f) and 55 of the Excise Act, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that earlier the petitioner has moved in A.B.A. No.478 of 2026 which was dismissed as withdrawn. He next submits that on the fresh ground, second anticipatory bail has been filed as two of the accused persons have been granted regular bail and one of the co-accused person has been granted anticipatory bail. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the prayer and submits that earlier on merit earlier anticipatory bail was argued which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to move before the learned court by way of filing regular bail application. He submits that same ground has been taken in the present petition and no fresh ground is made out to entertain the second anticipatory bail application. 5. Considering that the said anticipatory bail application was dismissed as withdrawn and submission has been made by the learned counsel on behalf of petitioner that two of the co-accused persons have been granted regular bail and the other who has been granted anticipatory bail, his case is on different footing and there is no fresh ground to entertain the second anticipatory bail application. 6. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application, is hereby, dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Anit Uploaded 04.05.2026