Shyam Lal Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 4993 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Shyam Lal Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 April, 2025

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

                                                         2025:JHHC:11738


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                         A.B.A. No.3529 of 2024
                                  ------
     Shyam Lal Yadav, age about 52 years, son of Badri Prasad,
     resident of Gandhi Road, Raghu Rai Tower, PO Dhanbad, PS
     Dhansar, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand ... ... Petitioner
                                  Versus
     1.The State of Jharkhand.
     2.Robust Construction Proprietor, Robin Thomas, s/o Thomas
     Thomas, r/o 27, Nityanand Mukherjee Road, PS Howrah, PO
     Howrah, District Howrah, Pin 711101
                                          ... ... Opposite Parties
                                  ------
                     CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

------

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate.

Mr. Sudhanshu Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Someshwar Roy, A.P.P.

-----

14/ 21.04.2025

Heard the parties.

2. This anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest for offences registered under Sections 420/384 in connection with CP Case No. 766 of 2014 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad.

3. An objection has been taken by the informant that on earlier occasion the petitioner has filed ABA No. 3423 of 2019 which was dismissed on 28.09.2019 on the ground of non- prosecution. To restore anticipatory bail application another application being Cr.MP No. 3644 of 2019 was filed and the same was again dismissed on 06.12.2019 as no one appeared even inspite of repeated calls. Thus according to the informant and the State fresh anticipatory bail is not maintainable.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Rani Dudeja vs. State of Haryana" reported in (2017) 13 SCC 555 and submits that the second anticipatory bail application is maintainable.

5. I have gone through the petition, the facts of the case and the earlier orders. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Rani Dudeja" (supra) has held that the second application is

2025:JHHC:11738

maintainable on change of circumstances and the principle of res judicata is not operated. From the aforesaid judgment it is clear that on the changed circumstances another anticipatory bail application is definitely maintainable.

6. So far as this case is concerned, I find that anticipatory bail of the petitioner was rejected way back on 28.09.2019 and the restoration application was also rejected on 06.12.2019. The present application has been filed only on 18.05.2024. There is nothing on record to suggest that there is any apprehension of the petitioner of being arrested. Further admittedly the petitioner was not arrested from 2019 till date. In view of this Court that there is no apprehension of the petitioner being arrested, I find no ground to entertain this application, the same is dismissed.

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

Tanuj/Cp-3