( 1 ) THE petitioners have earlier filed Miscellaneous Criminal application No. 2412 of 1991, which was withdrawn on 14-8-1991. However, though Mr. Saiyed, learned Advocate himself appeared in the matter also, no such averment is made in this petition. Not even a statement is made in this application that except this application, no other application is filed before this Court or before the Supreme Court.

( 2 ) WHEN I had called upon Mr. Saiyed to explain about the same, he submitted that he has made an averment in para-9 which reads as under: during the investigation, one bail application was filed but was withdrawn. this statement is absolutely vague. It leads neither here nor there. However, Mr. Saiyed stated that he wants to explain the same. Therefore, leave to amend is granted.

( 3 ) BY way of an amendment, Mr. Saiyed has stated at the end of para-9 in this application as under : it is submitted that at the time of Bail Application No. 2412 of 1991 the chargesheet was not with the Advocate, though it was submitted in the court. from the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 26/07/1991 in Bail Application No. 602 of 1991, it has become more than clear that in fact the chargesheet was with the trial Court advocate. In fact, on the basis of that only the petitioners Advocate made a submission before the trial Court that now the chargesheet is filed and the investigation is over and, therefore, there should not any objection in releasing the accused on bail by the Court. If the papers of the chargesheet were with the trial Courts Advocate of the petitioners, then it is very difficult to believe that the papers of the chargesheet were not with the Advocate of the petitioners, who had filed earlier Bail application being Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 2412 of 1991 before this Court. At this stage, it is to be noted that in the earlier bail Application being M. C. A. No. 2412 of 1991 the statement is made in para 8 by Mr. Saiyed himself, learned Advocate for the petitioners, that the chargesheet has already been filed. Thus, the chargesheet was filed and the papers of the said chargesheet were with the petitioners Advocate even at that time. In my view, once the Bail application is filed before this Court after the chargesheet, is received by the accused and the same is withdrawn from this Court, it amounts to dismissal of the petition. When a Court is not inclined to grant the bail, it would give some reasons rejecting the application, which might come in the way of the accused during the trial and because of that the Advocate for the accused would prefer to withdraw the application instead of getting the application rejected with reasons. In such an event the subsequent bail application of the same accused cannot be entertained* unless and until fresh circumstance or ground is made out by the accused for releasing him on bail. In this case, no new ground is made out by the petitioners for releasing them on bail. Therefore, this application is required to be rejected.

( 4 ) HOWEVER, Mr. Saiyed urged before me that though the chargesheet was filed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the same was with the Advocate appearing for petitioners in the trial Court, and it had not come in the hands of the relatives of the petitioners. Therefore, in the absence of the chargesheet he had withdrawn the earlier petition filed before this Court. But now he has got papers of the chargesheet with him. Therefore, according to him, this Court should consider this Bail Application on its own merits, irrespective of the fact that the earlier Bail Application was withdrawn by him. He has further submitted that the petitioners relatives are coming from Uttar Pradesh and, therefore, the present application is made after obtaining necessary instructions from the relatives of the petitioners and receiving the papers of the chargesheet. However, this submission made by Mr. Saiyed cannot be accepted for