-------For the Petitioner : Mr. Nand Kishore Ram, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Shree Prakash Jha, A.P.P. -------- Order No. 05/ Dated: 17^th September, 2026

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶10

Apprehending her arrest in connection with Tatisilway P.S. Case No. 15 of 2023 instituted under Sections 302, 201, 34 of the I.P.C., the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier anticipatory bail application of the petitioner was rejected by this Court at the initial stage of the investigation vide order dated 25.04.2024 passed in A.B.A. No. 5833 of 2023. It is simply submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner resides separately from other main co-accused person and no role has been attributed against her.

¶12

Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submitted that there is no fresh ground to entertain this anticipatory bail application.

¶13

It appears that earlier anticipatory bail petition of this petitioner was rejected vide order passed in A.B.A. No.5833 of 2023 dated

¶14

2026:JHHC:28116

¶15

25.04.2024 on merits, I do not find any fresh and new ground has been agitated by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is also not taking any interest in co-operation with the investigation of the case although, charge-sheet has been submitted against rest of the accused person and trial has commenced. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this second anticipatory bail application, which stands dismissed.

¶16

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶17

17.09.2026

¶18

Arpit Uploaded on 17/09/2026

¶19

Sarita Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sarita Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases