IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-25179 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 31.8.2010 Lallu ......Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Mr.Jamshed Ahmed, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** ORDER The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by petitioner Lallu for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 290 dated 7.11.2009 under Sections 498-A, 406, 506, 323/34 IPC registered ate Police Station Tauru, District Mewat. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is second anticipatory bail application as certain facts have come to the knowledge of the petitioner subsequently which were not available at the time of hearing of earlier anticipatory bail application.The allegations levelled in the FIR are vague and general just to harass the petitioner and his family members and there is no specific allegation for demand of dowry against the present petitioner. Moreover, all family members are residing in the same house and there can't be any possibility to commit rape upon the complainant. There is no allegation of threat also. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the Crl.Misc.No.M-25179 of 2010 [2] documents available on the file. Earlier anticipatory bail application filed by the present petitioner has already been dismissed by passing a detailed order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for filing second anticipatory bail application and only by taking the plea that certain facts have come to the knowledge of the petitioner subsequently, is not a ground to grant anticipatory bail as the same is barred unless a specific case is made out for filing the same. Moreover, the earlier bail application was filed by other lawyer and learned counsel for the petitioner now cannot take this plea that in the earlier anticipatory bail application some arguments were not raised as he was not the arguing counsel in the earlier bail application. In T.N.Electrcity Board and another v. N.Raju Reddiar and another AIR 1997 S.C. 1005, Hon'ble the Apex Court observed that review is not maintainable if the review application has been filed by another lawyer who was not the arguing counsel in the main case. Learned counsel for the petitioner cannot take this plea that in the earlier anticipatory bail application some of the facts were not in the knowledge of the earlier counsel and certain arguments were not raised at the time of hearing of the earlier bail application. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any ground to make out a case for filing second anticipatory bail application. Since the earlier anticipatory bail application has been dismissed by passing a speaking order on merits, the second bail Crl.Misc.No.M-25179 of 2010 [3] application cannot be accepted without making out a special case. The petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE August 31, 2010. raghav