IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45114 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-272 Year-2017 Thana- ARA NAWADA District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Manoranjan Kumar @ Manoranjan Tiwary Son of Rajbansh Tiwari Resident of Village - Gangati, Post - Koath, P.S.- Dawath, District - Rohtas. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Baxi S.R.P. Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Sandeep Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 2 22-07-2026 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This is second anticipatory bail petition. Earlier, the petition, filed for grant of anticipatory bail on behalf of the petitioner, stood rejected, vide order dated 12.04.2018 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 15194 of 2018.

3. Petitioner has renewed prayer for anticipatory bail after lapse of eight years, on the ground of parity as co-accused Ramesh Kumar Sinha has been granted bail vide order dated 23.03.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 34300 of 2021 which reads: ‘In the facts and circumstances of the case, this application for anticipatory bail is allowed’ without discussing facts of the case or without stating any reason. It further appears that Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45114 of 2026(2) dt.22-07-2026 2/2 aforesaid order was obtained suppressing the material fact that earlier prayer for anticipatory bail of Ramesh Kumar Sinha was rejected by this Court vide order dated 12.04.2018 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 15194 of 2018 (Annexure-1) and as such, petitioner cannot claim parity with the aforesaid co-accused. 4. This application does not reveal any change of circumstances or new ground. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G.R. Ananda Babu Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Anrs reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 176, the second anticipatory bail on behalf of the petitioner is not maintainable. It is, accordingly, dismissed. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Navya/- U T

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45114 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-272 Year-2017 Thana- ARA NAWADA District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Manoranjan Kumar @ Manoranjan Tiwary Son of Rajbansh Tiwari Resident of Village - Gangati, Post - Koath, P.S.- Dawath, District - Rohtas. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Baxi S.R.P. Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Sandeep Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 2 22-07-2026 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This is second anticipatory bail petition. Earlier, the petition, filed for grant of anticipatory bail on behalf of the petitioner, stood rejected, vide order dated 12.04.2018 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 15194 of 2018.

3. Petitioner has renewed prayer for anticipatory bail after lapse of eight years, on the ground of parity as co-accused Ramesh Kumar Sinha has been granted bail vide order dated 23.03.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 34300 of 2021 which reads: ‘In the facts and circumstances of the case, this application for anticipatory bail is allowed’ without discussing facts of the case or without stating any reason. It further appears that Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45114 of 2026(2) dt.22-07-2026 2/2 aforesaid order was obtained suppressing the material fact that earlier prayer for anticipatory bail of Ramesh Kumar Sinha was rejected by this Court vide order dated 12.04.2018 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 15194 of 2018 (Annexure-1) and as such, petitioner cannot claim parity with the aforesaid co-accused. 4. This application does not reveal any change of circumstances or new ground. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G.R. Ananda Babu Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Anrs reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 176, the second anticipatory bail on behalf of the petitioner is not maintainable. It is, accordingly, dismissed. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Navya/- U T