Successive applications for anticipatory bail can be entertained if there is a change in the fact situation or law which requires the earlier view being interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete.

1. By the order dated 17.11.2006, this Court had rejected the above criminal applications for the reasons to be recorded separately. The reasons thereof are as under :

2. All these criminal applications are seeking the release of the applicants on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime NOs.143, 144 and 145 of 2006 registered with Azadnagar Police Station, Dhule, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 409 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. It is the allegations of the prosecution that the Directors of Swargawasi Kanhaiyyalaji Maharaj Nagari Sahakari Patpedhi, Dhule, ( for short, hereinafter referred to as "Patpedhi" in this order) had sanctioned huge loans either in their names or in the names of their close relatives or friends. These loans were allegedly sanctioned in utter disregard to the provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, Rules framed thereunder and the byelaws of the Patpedhi. It is alleged that the said Directors had committed breach of trust, misappropriation and cheating. The first information report was registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by the Special Auditor. During the course of investigation, the other persons like the employees of Patpedhi and the persons who were benefited by taking the loans were also implicated and made accused in the crime.

4. The applicant in Criminal Application Nos.3347, 3348 and 3349 of 2006 is the Director of Patpedhi. The applicant in Criminal Application No.3458 of 2006 is alleged to have borrowed an amount of Rs.70,00,000/- (Seventy Lakhs).

5. It is not in dispute that all the applicants had earlier approached this Court by way of applications for anticipatory bail. However, the said applications were either rejected or after hearing, they were withdrawn.

6. A preliminary objection is raised by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor so also by the learned Advocate assisting the prosecution on behalf of the complainant that since earlier applications of the applicants were either rejected or withdrawn, the present applications on the same set of facts are not maintainable. On the contrary, Shri V.D. Sapkal, learned Advocate appearing for the applicants, submits that in his case the applications were only withdrawn and therefore, withdrawal of the said applications would not come in the way of entertaining the present applications. In any event, he submits that even the rejection of the earlier application would not come in the way of filing successive applications.

7. Shri V.D.Sapkal, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants, submits that the Apex Court in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar versus Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and another ( 2005 Cri LJ 944) has held that the principle of res judicata is not applicable to the criminal jurisprudence. He submits that if there is any change in the facts situation or in law which requires earlier view being re-considered successive bail applications are tenable in law. He submits that the Apex Court in Kalyan Sarkar’s case (cited supra) has taken a view to that effect while interpreting the provisions of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He submits that the provisions of Sections 438 and 439 of the Code are almost analogous. The only distinction is that the powers under Section 439 are to be exercised after a person is arrested, whereas, the powers under Section 438 are to be exercised prior to the arrest of an accused. He also relies on the decision of the Full Bench of Rajasthan High Court in Ganesh Raj versus State of Rajasthan and others (2005 Cri LJ 2086) wherein it is held that successive application for grant of anticipatory bail is tenable when there is a change in the facts situation or in law or where the earlier finding has become obsolete. He further relies on various other judgments of the High Courts wherein it is held that withdrawal of the earlier applications would not come in the way of Court in entertaining s