A second application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable if it seeks the same relief as the earlier application, which was rejected by the court, and the development of new circumstances since the rejection of the earlier application must bring about a change in the fact situation of the case to justify the maintainability of the present application.

1. By this application petitioners have prayed for anticipatory bail as they apprehend that they may be arrested by the police in connection with Chopra P. S. Case No. 87/2000.

2. However, a serious objection bas been raised by teamed Additional P. P. against maintainability of the present petition on the ground that exactly similar application being C.R.M. No. 1720/2000 preferred by, the petitioners on an earlier Possession seeking exactly same relief was rejected by another Division Bench of this Court by an order passed on 18.5.2000.

3. According to Mr. S. S. Roy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, this application is maintainable as because new circumstances have developed since earlier application for anticipatory bail was turned down by this Court. On the other hand contention of learned Additional P.P. is that in no case such application is maintainable second time after similar application seeking exactly same relief was turned down by this Court. His further contention is that development of new circumstances since rejection of the earlier application cannot lend maintainability to the present application witness is aforesaid contention learned Additional P. P. cited a decision of this Court in (I) Ekkari Ghosh @ Jitendra v. State of West Bengal, 1994 (2) CHN 123. He also cited another decision of this Court in (2) Kalidas Mitra v. State, 1989 (3) Crimes 652. On the other hand Mr. Roy cited large number of decisions in support of his contentions. It is true that this Court gave conflicting decisions on the aforesaid question of law.

4. We do not like to express any opinion on this question as because we are of the view that even if we assume that in certain circumstances a second application under Section 438 of the Code seeking similar relief is maintainable as after bearing the learned Counsel for both sides and on perusal on the materials placed before us we are of the opinion that no such new circumstance could be brought to our notice which may lend maintainability to the present application.

5. Petitioners arc wanted in connection with the aforesaid case under Sections 411/414/34 I.P.C. Fact of the case is that a Sub-Inspector of Police of the said Police Station lodged a written complaint on the basis of which aforesaid F.I.R. was registered alleging, inter alia, that acting upon a telephonic instruction from the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Islampur, said Sub-Inspector of Police intercepted a vehicle when it was moving suspiciously on a highway at about 11 a.m. and the same was brought to the Police Station. One Dinesh Sharma and Awadesh Singh were occupying the said vehicle and upon interrogation said Awadesh Singh divulged that petitioner No.2, Pradip Kumar Agarwala is the owner of the said vehicle. But, on inspection of the R.C. book, it was found that petitioner No.2 is not the owner of the said vehicle. Rather one Raju Agarwala of Siliguri is the owner 0" the said vehicle as noted in the said R.C. book. On further interrogation aforesaid arrested accused persons stated that they did not know any Raju Agarwala being the registered owner of the said vehicle. In the said complaint, it was further alleged that upon search of the vehicle an amount of Rs. 11,02,850/- in Indian currency and another amount of Rs. 1,000/- in Nepalese currency were recovered from the said vehicle and upon further interrogation in connection therewith it was stated by the aforesaid two accused persons that the accused persons were deputed by petitioner No.1, Anil Kumar Agarwala to collect money from petitioner No.3, Subhkaran Agarwala which was lying with petitioner No. 3 as sale proceeds of some gold and silver jewellery /articles belonging to the mother of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. Petitioner No.3 happens to be the maternal uncle of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. It was further stated in the said complaint that on the basis of the aforesaid facts, it was suspected that the accused persons received stolen property being the afor