1 (1) S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. SCEOND BAIL APPLICATION NO.3473/2008 JITESH DEMBALA V. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN. (2) S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. SCEOND BAIL APPLICATION NO.4300/2008 HITESH DEMBALA V. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN. DATE: 07-08-2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. M. TOTLA Mr. Sandeep Mehta, for Applicant (s). Mr. S.K.Vyas, PP, for the State. Mr.Sachin Acharya, for Complainant. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (s),as well as learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant also perused the relevant documents produced by the parties. Earlier the bail application of accused – petitioner Hitesh Dembala s/o. Late Shri Ramesh Ji Dembala was rejected on 17.06.2008 and the bail application of another applicant Jitesh Dembala s/o. Late Shri Ramesh Ji Dembala was also rejected vide order dated 17.06.2008 by this Court. Both these applicants have now preferred second bail applications under Section 438, Cr.P.C. Both the second bail applications under Section 438, Cr.P.C., are decided by this common order. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Jitesh is brother-in-law of complainant – for which no specific allegations different to persons for whom anticipatory bail granted - if any recovery from this applicant is to be made, he is ready to extend all co-operation and ready to present alleged ring - that the husband has already offered to present all the ornaments, for which telegram too, was given to the SHO on July 11th, 2008 which was refused to receive. For applicant Jitesh also, as 2 contended above and further submitted that as per his information, offences under Section 312, IPC, or like are not found to have any substance and that on substantial changes of circumstances or fact, second or successive such application may lie. In support of his contention, reliance is placed on the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka, (2008) (2) SCC (Cri.) 73 and order dated 02.05.2008 (copy produced) in Criminal Appeal No.791/2008, Rajendra Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Another. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the Complainant contended that only in exceptional circumstances, second bail application under Section 438, Cr.P.C., may lie - ornaments articles are to be recovered – rest substantial allegations are also against the petitioners and the petitioners if want to produce some articles, they may do so. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that if the articles are submitted and or investigation is complete, there is no reason to assume that applicants, if arrested or surrendered, shall not be immediately presented before the concerned Magisterial Court. Learned counsel for the complainant placed reliance on judgment of Ganesh Raj v. State of Rajasthan & Others in Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No.783/2005. Considered copies of documents and telegram with receipts and also earlier order and the allegations. Recovery is to be made, so without commenting on the merits and looking to above submissions, in totality of facts and circumstances of the case, it does not appear to be a fit case for grant of second anticipatory bail to any of the applicants above named. Accordingly, the second bail applications u/s.438, Cr.P.C., of both the applicants are rejected. (C. M. TOTLA), J. scd 3