R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.504 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of January, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 308 and 324 r/w 149 I.P.C. The alleged incident took place on 10.12.07. The petitioner along with some other co- accused had come to this Court claiming anticipatory bail and this Court by order dated 07.01.08 in B.A.No.8019 of 2007 had dismissed the application for anticipatory bail so filed by the petitioner and the other accused. 2. The petitioner has come to this Court again claiming anticipatory bail. It is trite that when one application for anticipatory bail Is dismissed and the petitioner again approaches this Court for the same relief, the petitioner must show change of circumstances if any to justify the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by this Court in the second application. 3. Except that some time has elapsed after the dismissal of the earlier application for anticipatory bail, no other specific change of circumstances are brought to my notice. The learned B.A.No.504 of 2008 2 counsel for the petitioner further submits that when the matter came up for hearing on the previous occasion, certain very important facts were omitted to bring to the notice of this Court. 4. What are those circumstances ? On 07.12.07, the petitioner had complained about commission of offences, inter alia, under Sections 341 and 427 against two named persons and some others. The accused in that crime and the defacto complainant in this crime do all belong to the same political party. The petitioner was threatened to withdraw the allegations raised in the crime registered on 08.12.07. He refused to do that. Only because of that, the present allegations is raised against him in this crime, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I find no circumstances which can persuade me to take a different view as there has already been taken in the order dated 07.01.08. I do stick to the view that the petitioner must surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and then seek regular bail in the ordinary course. 6. This application is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but I may hasten to observe that if the petitioner surrenders before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and B.A.No.504 of 2008 3 applies for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/- R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.164 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of January, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner, an employee of the Post Office, is alleged to have received an amount of Rs.10,000/- from an account holder for the purpose of making a deposit in the Post Office. He did not make that deposit. Instead, in the closed pass book, he made an entry. After one year when the account holder came to the post office claiming the amount, the petitioner was not available there, he having been transferred from that office. However, the petitioner paid the amount to the account holder and attempted to square up the matter. The matter came to the notice of the postal departmental authorities. Enquiry was conducted. The complicity of the petitioner was ascertained. Thereupon the complaint was filed. Crime has been registered under Section 409 I.P.C. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner has not been arrested so far. He apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent. The account holder has not complained. B.A.No.164 of 2008 2 The entire amount payable to him has already been paid. He has not suffered any loss. In these circumstances, a lenient view may be taken and the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that there are no circumstances justifying or warranting the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioner may be directed to appear before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail, submits the learned Public Prosecutor . 4. I have considered all the relevant inputs. The case diary has been perused by me. I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor that there are no circumstances justifying or warranting the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The question is not really whether the defacto complainant has a grievance or not. What is disturbing is that the amounts due to the Post Office has been allegedly misappropriated by the petitioner for a period of more than one year. I am, at any rate, not inclined to agree that a lenient view is liable to be taken in the matter. I agree with the B.A.No.164 of 2008 3 learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail. Of course different considerations will apply when application for regular bail is considered by the learned Magistrate. I need only mention that I find no reason to invoke the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 5. This application is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but I may hasten to observe that if the petitioner surrenders before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and applies for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-