THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.6236 of 2009 Dated: 19th August, 2009 Between: 1. Pillutla Seethamma & Ors. …Petitioners and The State of A.P., rep. by its by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …Respondent *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.6236 of 2009 ORDER: This is the second anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioners. The earlier anticipatory bail application filed by them came to be dismissed on 04.08.2009 vide Crl.P.No.5547 of 2009. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocents and they have been falsely implicated in this case. 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State opposed the application. 5. The petitioners approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail by filing Crl.P.No.5547 of 2009. The said petition ended in dismissal on 04.08.2009. In regard to cases where earlier bail applications have been rejected there is a further onus on the Court to consider the subsequent application for grant of bail by noting the grounds on which earlier bail applications have been rejected and after such consideration if the Court is of the opinion that bail has to be granted then the said court will have to give specific reasons why inspite of such earlier rejection the subsequent application for bail should be granted - vide decision of Supreme Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan[1]. 6. The earlier anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioners came to be dismissed on 04.08.2009 on the ground that the de facto complainant has been supported by two of her collegues with regard to the accused manhandling her. There are no changed circumstances, which enure to the benefit of the petitioners to renew their request for anticipatory bail. 7. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, since the 1st petitioner is stated to be 68 years odl, she is at liberty to surrender herself before the concerned Court and move an application seeking regular bail, in which event the concerned Court shall dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably on the same day. (B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.) Date:19th August, 2009. cs [1] AIR 2004 SCW 1581