1 Appln.: 144/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.144 OF 2011 Rita S. Nair .... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .... Respondents Mr. D.K. Singh i/by Rishi Bhuta, Mr. Devendra Udani, Advocate for applicant. Mr. P.A. Pol, and Mr. Y.M. Nakhwa, APP for respondents. Coram : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. Date : 31st March, 2011 P.C. 1. This is the third application for anticipatory bail by the applicant, who apprehends her arrest in CR No.I/9 of 2010 dated 11th January 2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 read with 34 Indian Penal Code filed against her by the Sales Tax Office. After the first application was rejected by this court by its order dated 27th August 2010, the appellant and her two co-accused had preferred Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court, which came to be dismissed in limine by the order dated 28th September 2010. The Apex Court dismissed the petition as no valid ground existed to entertain the Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Thereafter the applicant had filed second application being Criminal 2 Appln.: 144/2011 Application No.4868/2010, which was rejected by the order dated 2nd November 2010. The second order has not been challenged by the applicant in the Apex Court. 2. The present third application has been filed on the ground of occurrence of a subsequent event i.e. passing of the order dated 21st October 2010, by this court allowing the application for anticipatory bail by the co-accused. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the main accused Suresh Kumar Nair, the Managing Director of the Company, has been granted anticipatory bail on deposit of Rs.20,20,985/-. Therefore the applicant herein who is only one of the Directors of the Company deserves to be granted anticipatory bail. This contention of the applicant, however, has already been considered by this Court in the second application for anticipatory bail. That application was filed on the very ground and rejected. It is not the case of the applicant that after rejection of the second anticipatory bail, on 2nd November 2010, any further new development has taken place. Hence, this application for anticipatory bail cannot be considered. The same is dismissed. (SMT.R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J)