Pankaj Kumar Khandelwal Alias Pankaj Khandelwal vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Facts

The petitioner, Pankaj Kumar Khandelwal, is apprehending arrest in connection with Adityapur P.S. Case No. 103 of 2024. The case is registered under sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sections 61(2) and 132(1)(b) of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act, 2017. The petitioner had previously filed an anticipatory bail application (A.B.A. No. 3783 of 2024) which was dismissed as withdrawn on April 15, 2025. He argues that co-accused individuals have been granted anticipatory bail in separate applications (A.B.A. No. 3640 of 2024 and A.B.A. No. 3910 of 2024) and seeks similar relief. The State opposes the prayer, citing the previous withdrawal of the petitioner's application and the absence of new grounds.

Held

The Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application. The primary reasoning was that the petitioner's earlier anticipatory bail application had been dismissed as withdrawn on April 15, 2025. The Court noted that there was no change in circumstances to justify filing a fresh application directly before the High Court. While acknowledging that co-accused individuals had been granted anticipatory bail on earlier dates (May 31, 2024, and July 22, 2024), the Court found this insufficient to override the fact that the petitioner's own prior application was withdrawn. The Court also observed that the present application was filed after a change in roster, which it found significant. The ratio decidendi is that a withdrawn anticipatory bail application, without a change in circumstances, cannot be revived, and the grant of bail to co-accused does not automatically entitle the petitioner to the same relief, especially when the petitioner's own application was withdrawn.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in Adityapur P.S. Case No. 103 of 2024, considering his previous anticipatory bail application was dismissed as withdrawn and co-accused have been granted anticipatory bail. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends that since co-accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail by the Court, he should also be extended the same privilege. He relies on the orders granting anticipatory bail to co-accused persons as a basis for his claim. Revenue/State's arguments: The State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. It argues that the petitioner's earlier anticipatory bail application was dismissed as withdrawn, and there are no fresh grounds to warrant a new application. The State also notes that the current application was filed after a change in roster, implying a possible procedural maneuver.