The Jharkhand High Court on October 9, 2025 rejected an anticipatory bail application after it had been previously rejected multiple times. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwiwedi held that repeatedly seeking anticipatory bail after it has already been rejected by a Bench of co-ordinate jurisdiction and by a review of an earlier Division Bench’s decision, could lead to confusion and disorder in the judicial process.
The petitioner was arrested in apprehension in connection with a criminal case registered for assault, wrongful restraint, wrongful confinement, attempt to murder, and criminal intimidation, with a more serious charge of culpable homicide added later. He had previously moved anticipatory bail applications and a petition seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings, all of which had been dismissed or withdrawn. The counsel of petitioner argued that new grounds had arisen justifying a fresh application, claiming he was falsely implicated in the FIR, the medical report showed that the victim died due to an illness rather than assault, and that he had been exonerated in departmental proceedings. The charge-sheet submission on 20.09.2018 was also made known by the petitioner’s counsel while also referring to certain paragraphs of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent which supported the petitioner’s case. The respondents opposed the plea, submitting that police and CID investigations had found sufficient material against him, that the charge-sheet had already been filed, and that there were no new circumstances to justify a fresh anticipatory bail application after earlier rejections.
The court held that since the petitioner’s earlier anticipatory bail applications had been rejected and the medical report had already been considered, there was no fresh ground for another plea. It also emphasized that an anticipatory bail application cannot be repeatedly revived once rejected, as doing so would undermine judicial decorum and lead to inconsistent decisions among co-ordinate Benches. The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mahadolal v. Administrator General AIR 1960 SC 1930, and noted that judicial decorum requires consistency in decisions. Therefore, observing that the charge-sheet had been filed and all relevant issues had been previously adjudicated, the Court found no new cause of action and accordingly, rejected the anticipatory bail application.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner : Advs. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ajay Kr. Sah,
For the State : Advs. Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Spl. P.P. : Ms. Shauda Kumari, A.C. to P.P.
