1 19 S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. THIRD BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2115/2010 Vijay Kumar Vs. The State of Rajasthan DATE OF ORDER : 8th April 2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.Hemant Dutt, for the petitioner. Mr.O.P.Singharia,Public Prosecutor for State. Mr.J.R.Chawel, for the complainant. .... BY THE COURT: The second bail application (No.273/2010) moved on behalf of the petitioner was rejected by this Court on 25.02.2010 with the following order:- “The first bail application (No.4977/2009) as moved on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 10.11.2009. As per the observations made in the order dated 15.09.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, copy whereof has been placed in the file of the first bail application, it was noticed that the petitioner had been involved in multiple criminal cases including two cases at Police Station Jawali (Himachal Pradesh). An affidavit has been filed by Shri Bag Singh, father of the petitioner, stating that no criminal case is pending in any Court in Haryana and Punjab States against the petitioner. The statement so made in the affidavit is entirely irrelevant. The petitioner is said to be involved in multiple cases at Raisinghnagar and Srivijaynagar in the State of Rajasthan and so also at Jawali (Himachal Pradesh). In the totality of the circumstances, this Court finds no reason to grant indulgence to the petitioner in this second bail application. Accordingly, this second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of the petitioner Vijay Kumar S/o Bag Singh stands rejected.” 2 The petitioner has now moved another bail application, the present one, on 15.03.2010, without any change of circumstances. Upon this Court expressing reservations on moving of repeat bail application without change of circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was informed only by the learned counsel for the complainant that the second bail application on behalf of the petitioner was moved and rejected and, therefore, he may be permitted not to press on this bail application. This Court would not like to make any comments on the submissions so made except that the petitioner or his representative, while getting moved the bail application, ought to give out complete facts and information including that regarding previous bail application/s; and it is expected of the learned counsel to complete his instructions while moving the bail application. Be that as it may, after having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find any reason to grant indulgence to the petitioner in this third bail application particularly when there is no change of circumstances. Accordingly, this third bail application moved on behalf of the petitioner Vijay Kumar s/o Bhag Singh under Section 439 Cr.P.C. stands rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J. s.soni