1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application (ABA) No. 36 of 2011 Ravi Mohan Godale ..VERSUS.. State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O., P.S., Old City, Akola Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. S.D.Chopde, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs. B.P.Maldhure, A.P.P. for the respondent/State CORAM : Prasanna B. Varale, J. DATED : 10th March , 2011 . Heard Mr. S.D.Chopde, learned Advocate for the applicant and Mrs. B.P.Maldhure, learned APP for the respondent/State. By the present application under Section 438 of Code or Criminal Procedure, the applicant is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 257/2010, registered with Police Station, old City, Akola under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 307 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 4, 25 of Arms Act and Sec. 135 of Bombay Police Act. Mr. Chopde, learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant, who is in Government service, has been falsely implicated in the said crime only because of the rivalry and he is not at all concerned with it. The learned Advocate has submitted that the applicant is ready to abide by any condition imposed upon him by this Court, in case of grant of pre-arrest bail. Mrs. Maldhure, learned APP for the State has filed the reply and vehemently opposed the application. The learned APP has further submitted that this is second application of the applicant for grant of pre-arrest bail. Earlier, the applicant had filed Criminal 2 Application No.1897/2010 with similar prayer and this Court by order dated 20/12/2010, on considering the statements of witnesses and the material from which it was reflected that the applicant was armed with sword and knife i.e. deadly weapons and considering that the investigation was at initial stage, rejected that application. She has further submitted that the offence is serious in nature and there is enough material to connect the applicant with the said crime. As such, the learned APP has submitted that in view of these facts, this second application filed by the applicant deserves no indulgence at the hands of this Court. Perused the material produced by the learned APP. It is not in dispute that this Court by order dated 20/12/2010, on considering the material rejected the earlier application. In view of the fact that the earlier application has been rejected on merits and on consideration of the material, I am of the opinion that the subsequent application of the applicant seeking pre-arrest bail, is not maintainable. It will be useful to refer to the judgment of the Full Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case of Maya Rani Guin .vs. State of West Bengal, reported in 2003 Cri.L.J. 1, wherein it is observed that - "20. ....... We are of the view that entertaining a second application for anticipatory bail would amount to review or reconsideration of the earlier order passed by a Division Bench having co-ordinate jurisdiction, as the accusation remains unchanged. We also find merit in the submission of Mr. Moitra that the 'accusation' being the sine qua non and which remains the same, there cannot be any revival of "reasons to believe" or apprehension of arrest which was considered by the Court in the earlier application for anticipatory bail. 21. Accordingly, the first question under the present reference is answered in the negative. We are of the view that the second application for anticipatory bail, even if new circumstances develop after rejection or disposal of the earlier application, is not maintainable." 3 In view of the judgment in Maya Rani Guin's case, I am of the opinion that in the present case also there is no change in the accusation and as it is observed that the accusation being the sine qua non and which remains the same, there cannot be any revival of "reasons to believe" or apprehension of arrest. On considering the submissions of learned Advocate for the applicant and learned APP for the State as well as in view of the judgment in Maya Rani Guin's case, in my opinion, the application is devoid of merits and deserves to be rejected. In the result, the application is rejected and disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Diwale