( 2026:JHHC:379 ) -1- A.B.A. No. 7507 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 7507 of 2025 Rahul Tiwari, aged about 33 years, son of Anand Kumar Tiwary @ Anad Kumar Tiwary, resident of Village- Baganpara, Harindanga Bazar, Pakur, P.O. Pakur, P.S. Pakur(T), District- Pakur, Jharkhand-816107 … Petitioner -Versus- The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, Spl.P.P. ----- 03/08.01.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No.163 of 2024, registered for the offence under Sections 352/351(3)/61(2)/3(5) of the BNS and Section 25(1-B)(a)/26/35 of the Arms Act, pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in the changed circumstances, the present application has been filed. He further submits that earlier the petitioner has moved before this Court in A.B.A. No.2582 of 2025, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 30.04.2025. He then submits that thereafter the petitioner has again filed A.B.A. No.5300 of 2025, which was dismissed vide order dated 12.09.2025 with liberty to the petitioner to move before the learned Court on the changed circumstance. He next submits that the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioner. He submits that the changed circumstance is there to the effect that the petitioner is not the registered owner of the mobile by which threatening was made. ( 2026:JHHC:379 ) -2- A.B.A. No. 7507 of 2025 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and submits that there is no changed circumstance and what has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that ground was already there and in view of that, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the anticipatory bail petition. 5. This is the third anticipatory bail application before the High Court. Twice the anticipatory bail applications, filed by the petitioner have already been dismissed. What has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that was available at the time of first withdrawal of the application itself. There is no changed circumstance. Only on the changed circumstance, second anticipatory bail application can be entertained. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and, as such, his prayer for anticipatory bail is, hereby, rejected. 6. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. 7. However, if the petitioner moves before the learned Court by way of filing regular bail petition, that will be decided in accordance with law without being prejudiced to this order. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated: 8th January, 2026 Ajay/