1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 1855 of 2010 Dharma Nimai Rai ..VERSUS.. State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O., P.S., Gadchiroli. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. R.M.Patwardhan, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. M.J.Khan, A.P.P. for Respondent-State. CORAM : Prasanna B. Varale, J. DATED : 29 th Novem ber , 2010 . Heard. By this application, the applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 136/2010 registered with Police Station, Gadchiroli for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 332, 353, 324, 224, 109 of I.P.C. as he is apprehending his arrest. Mr. Patwardhan, learned Advocate for the applicant fairly submits that this Court has decided the earlier application for grant of pre-arrest bail, filed by the applicant being Criminal Application No. 1526/2010, but this Court was not inclined to allow the application and ultimately by order dated 13/10/2010, the application was rejected. Learned Advocate further submits that the applicant has moved the present application in changed circumstances i.e. the family members of the applicant were being harassed by the police officials and they have lodged report against office officials. He further submits that police officials are threatening the family members and in view of these peculiar facts, the applicant requires to be protected by this Court. 2 Per contra, Mr. Khan, learned APP for the State has submitted that this Court while rejecting the Cri. Application No. 1526/2010, found that the applicant was not deserving any protection by this Court. He further invited my attention to the observation made by this Court in the order dated 13/10/2010, which reads thus : “Perusal of record clearly shows the involvement of the applicant and his behaviour. the reply also mentions about the criminal antecedents of the applicant. Apart from this, the record clearly establishes the presence and the act of the applicant.” Learned APP further submits that the report lodged by the family members of the applicant is an attempt to counter blast the report against the applicant. The said report is dated 06/9/2010. It clearly indicates that the report is lodged after about 3 weeks of the alleged incident. According to learned APP, there is neither any fresh material nor there is any change in the circumstances and as such the application deserves to be rejected. I find considerable merit in the submissions of learned APP for the State. As this Court has already observed against the applicant and found that the applicant is not entitled for any protection and resultantly the application was rejected, I see no reason to extend any protection to the applicant in present application. In the result, the application is rejected and disposed of as such. JUDGE Diwale