In Harish Kumar Pathak v. State of Jharkhand (2025), the Jharkhand High Court held that a fresh anticipatory bail plea is not maintainable after rejection of earlier ones unless new circumstances arise. The petitioner, facing charges under Sections 304 and other IPC provisions, sought anticipatory bail despite two prior rejections. The Court ruled that all issues raised, including medical evidence and departmental exoneration, had already been considered. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi emphasized that under Section 482 BNSS (anticipatory bail), the scope is limited as the accusation and apprehension remain the same, unlike Section 483 BNSS (regular bail). The Court reiterated that coordinate benches cannot overrule each other, citing Mahadolal v. Administrator General (AIR 1960 SC 1930), and dismissed the plea for lack of new grounds, reinforcing judicial propriety and legal consistency.