AB 178/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Mr. D. Das, learned Public Prosecutor once again produces the case diary of CID P.S. Case No. 47/10 where pre-arrest bail was earlier refused to the petitioner on 12.10.2010 by rejecting his Bail Application No. 4570/2010. Mr. PK Roychoudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates the earlier p rayer for pre-arrest bail by submitting that the petitioner is family man withou t any past history of criminal record. He also submits that pre-arrest bail be c onsidered having regard to the age of the petitioner. I find that the petitioner is aged 48 years and, therefore, I do not consider th e age to be a factor to review the earlier decision taken by the Court on 12.10. 2010. Because of the incriminating materials in the case diary and without any fresh g round for re-considering bail, I see no merit in this petition. It is ordered ac cordingly.