IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1369 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1369 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1369 OF 2008 SUSHMA PANDURANG PAIKEKARI ..Applicant. Vs. State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. Mr P. R. Arjunwadkar, Advocate for the Applicant. Ms P.P. Shinde, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: V.C. DAGA,J. CORAM: V.C. DAGA,J. CORAM: V.C. DAGA,J. DATED: 30.4.2008. DATED: 30.4.2008. DATED: 30.4.2008. P P P.C. C. C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. Perused the application and the material available on record. 3. The applicant has moved the present application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail in C.R. No. 72 of 2007 for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 408, 409, 464, 465 of the I.P.C. registered at Mangalvedha Police Station, District Sholapur. 4. The prayer made by the applicant is opposed by the learned A.P.P. for the State contending that Criminal Application No.2973 of 2007 for anticipatory bail moved by the same applicant has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 2.11.2007 by a reasoned order He submits that there is no change in circumstance to consider the prayer afresh. The learned A.p.P. also submits that charge-sheet has already been submitted and it would be open for the applicant to obtain regular bail from the regular Court. 5. In rejoinder the learned counsel appearing for the applicant urged that after the order of this Court some of the accused persons have been granted regular bail. He, thus, submits that it be treated as change in circumstance and application be considered. He further submits that the applicant being a woman, she is entitled for exercise of discretion in her favour while considering her application for anticipatory bail. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Naraian Singh vs. State of M.P. Naraian Singh vs. State of M.P. Naraian Singh vs. State of M.P. 1996 CriLJ 551. 1996 CriLJ 551. 1996 CriLJ 551. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in ( 3 ) the case of Purushottamlal Vs State of Maharashtra, Purushottamlal Vs State of Maharashtra, Purushottamlal Vs State of Maharashtra, 1986 (1) Crimes 2007 and also judgment in the case of 1986 (1) Crimes 2007 and also judgment in the case of 1986 (1) Crimes 2007 and also judgment in the case of Bharat Chaudhary and Anr vs. State of Bihar, (2003)8 Bharat Chaudhary and Anr vs. State of Bihar, (2003)8 Bharat Chaudhary and Anr vs. State of Bihar, (2003)8 S.C.C. 77 S.C.C. 77 S.C.C. 77. He has also brought to my notice judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Kamlesh Dhirajlal Gandhi vs. State of Maharashtra and Kamlesh Dhirajlal Gandhi vs. State of Maharashtra and Kamlesh Dhirajlal Gandhi vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in 2007 (2) Mh.L.J. 850, another reported in 2007 (2) Mh.L.J. 850, another reported in 2007 (2) Mh.L.J. 850, wherein the learned Judge held that successive application for anticipatory bail, after rejection of earlier application, would be tenable in law. 6. Having seen the aforesaid proposition, there cannot be any dispute with regard to the propositions of law laid down. It is not in dispute as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Bharat Chaudhary (supra) Bharat Chaudhary (supra) Bharat Chaudhary (supra) anticipatory bail can be granted even after filing of the charge sheet. It is also not in dispute that successive bail application can be filed provided there is a change in the fact situation. So far as other judgments cited are concerned, they are hardly of any help for decision of this application. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for both parties and having seen the reasoned order dated ( 4 ) 2.11.2007 passed by this Court while rejecting application for bail, this application cannot be entertained since no change in circumstance is brought on record. In my considered view, for want of change in circumstance this application is not tenable. 8. In the result, the present application stands rejected. 9. Any observation made in this order shall not be construed as any finding or any expression of opinion on the merits of the case at the time of trial. (V.C.DAGA,J) (V.C.DAGA,J) (V.C.DAGA,J)