Rahul Tiwari Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Rahul Tiwari Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected. However, if the petitioner moves before the learned Court by way of a regular bail petition, it will be decided in accordance with law without being prejudiced to this order.

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner, who is apprehending arrest in connection with Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No.163 of 2024, on his claim of a changed circumstance (that he is not the registered owner of the mobile by which the threatening was made), this being his third anticipatory bail application before the High Court.

Court's answer

The ground now urged by the petitioner was already available at the time of the first withdrawal of his anticipatory bail application; there is no changed circumstance, and a subsequent anticipatory bail application can be entertained only on a changed circumstance.

Ratio / Principle

In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, the court was not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, and his prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected.

Key takeaways

If the petitioner moves before the learned Court by way of a regular bail petition, it will be decided in accordance with law without being prejudiced to this order.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory Bail — Third application — Rejected for want of changed circumstance — Petitioner apprehending arrest in Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No.163 of 2024 (Sections 352/351(3)/61(2)/3(5) of the BNS; Sections 25(1-B)(a)/26/35 of the Arms Act), pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur — Earlier A.B.A. No.2582 of 2025 dismissed as withdrawn (order dated 30.04.2025); A.B.A. No.5300 of 2025 dismissed (order dated 12.09.2025) with liberty to move before the learned Court on changed circumstance; anticipatory bail petition thereafter rejected by the learned Sessions Judge — Claimed changed circumstance (petitioner not the registered owner of the mobile by which threatening was made) was available even at the time of first withdrawal — Only on a changed circumstance can a subsequent anticipatory bail application be entertained — Privilege of anticipatory bail not extended; prayer rejected — Liberty to file regular bail petition before the learned Court, to be decided in accordance with law without prejudice to this order. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

( 2026:JHHC:379 )

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.

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.

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.

-1-

A.B.A. No. 7507 of 2025

( 2026:JHHC:379 )

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.

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.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

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: 8^th January, 2026 Ajay/

-2-

A.B.A. No. 7507 of 2025