Jharkhand High Court
A.B.A./5236/2026 of DEGNI DEVI Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 21 September 2026
No. 5236 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI A.B.A. No. 5236 of 2026 ---- 1. Degni Devi, aged about 50 years, wife of Hiraman Yadav, resident of Rohmar, PO – Gangpur, PS – Gidhour, District – Chatra, Jharkhand 2. Rinki Devi @ Rinki Kumari, aged about 27 years,
2026:JHHC:28516
--1--
A.B.A. No. 5236 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Degni Devi, aged about 50 years, wife of Hiraman Yadav, resident of Rohmar, PO – Gangpur, PS – Gidhour, District – Chatra, Jharkhand
2. Rinki Devi @ Rinki Kumari, aged about 27 years, wife of Rajesh Yadav, resident of Rohmar, PO – Gangpur, PS – Gidhour, District – Chatra, Jharkhand
3. Diliya Devi, aged about 43 years, wife of Ramdhani Yadav, resident of Rohmar, PO – Gangpur, PS – Gidhour, District – Chatra, Jharkhand
.... Petitioners -- Versus --
The State of Jharkhand
.... Opposite Party
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioners :- Mr. Shailesh Kr. Pandey, Advocate
For the State
:- Mr. Subodh Kr. Dubey, Advocate
---- 02/21.09.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Gidhour P.S. Case No.64 of 2025 for the alleged offences registered under Sections 303(2), 132, 238 and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 21 of MMDR Act, Rule 54 of JMMC Rule and Section 13 of JMPIMT and Storage Act pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chatra.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have earlier moved before this Court in ABA No.6524 of 2025 which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners 2026:JHHC:28516
--2-- to move before the learned Court. He further submits that on the fresh ground second anticipatory bail application has been filed. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be allowed.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and submits that on merit the petitioners have already argued the said case and the same was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to move before the learned Court, however, without moving before the learned Court second anticipatory bail application has been filed and there is no fresh ground stated in the petition. He further submits that there is no ground to entertain the second anticipatory bail application and in view of that anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected.
5. In the course of argument, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have not argued new grounds to entertain the second anticipatory bail application and the first anticipatory bail application was already argued on merit and thereafter the petitioners have withdrawn the application with liberty to move before the learned Court. Taking into account that there is no fresh ground to entertain the second anticipatory bail application, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby rejected.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 21.09.2026 Sangam/