IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 25TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 783 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.462/07 OF VALIATHURA POLICE STATION : PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ VINCENT @ AJI, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. LEON, LEON HOUSE, T.C.80/1561, BALA NAGAR, VETTUKADU TITANIUM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.MAHESH RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALIATHURA POLICE STATION THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.783 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of February, 2008 ORDER Second application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 308 I.P.C. His application for anticipatory bail was earlier dismissed as per order dated 23.01.08 in B.A.71 of 2008. The petitioner has again come before this Court with this application on 01.02.08. The earlier order rejecting the anticipatory bail has become final. There is no challenge. 2. It is trite that a person, who makes a renewed application for anticipatory bail, must show change of circumstances which can justify a renewed fresh consideration of the application for anticipatory bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner was requested to explain. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on two circumstances. 3. Firstly it is contended that when the earlier bail application came up for consideration, an incorrect circumstance was brought to the notice of the Court and the Court had relied on the same. The alleged incorrect circumstance is that the petitioner was involved in some other cases also. I have gone through the order in B.A.71 of 2008. Such a circumstance, the B.A.No.783 of 2008 2 order shows, was not brought to the notice of the Court. At any rate, that did not enter the judicial mind while considering the application for anticipatory bail. Therefore that circumstance cannot be reckoned as a change of circumstance at any rate. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner then contends that the petitioner had suffered injuries. This aspect was brought to the notice of the Court when the earlier application for anticipatory bail was considered. The anticipatory bail applications of the accused persons in the case and the counter case were dealt with together and a common order was passed. In these circumstances, I find no merit in the contention that the fact that the petitioner had suffered injuries was not taken into consideration. 5. It follows that there are no circumstances which can justify or warrant a fresh renewed consideration of the application for anticipatory bail. 6. This second application for anticipatory bail is hence dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-