The main legal point established is the need to consider changed circumstances and fresh grounds in subsequent bail applications, and the importance of giving due weight to the grounds that led to the rejection of the previous bail application.

ORDER :- This application filed by the petitioner for grant of bail is the second journey of the petitioner to this Court under Section 439 Cri. P.C.

2. During the stage of investigation, the petitioner approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cri. P.C. in BLAPL No. 12457 of 2006. This Court, while rejecting the said application for anticipatory bail, granted liberty to the petitioner to surrender before the learned Court below and move for regular bail, if he is so advised. The petitioner approached the Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition against the order of this Court refusing to grant anticipatory bail. The Supreme Court after hearing the case, by order dated 20-3-2007 observed that the High Court, while disposing of the petition has granted liberty to the petitioner to surrender before the Court below and move for regular bail, if he is so advised, in which event, the said Court shall dispose of the bail application expeditiously in accordance with law. In view of the above direction, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the Special Leave Petition with liberty to move for regular bail. The Supreme Court, therefore, disposed of the Special Leave Petition directing that if such an application is filed, the same shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible, while dismissing the Special Leave Petition as withdrawn. Even, thereafter, the petitioner did not surrender before the Court below for which the prosecution moved for issuance of process against the petitioner under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cri PC. The petitioner filed an application under Section 482 Cri. P.C. before this Court, challenging the process issued against him under Sections 82 and 83 Cri. P.C. While dismissing the said application under Section 482 Cri PC, this Court, without interfering with the order by which process was issued under the above provisions of the Cri. P.C., disposed of the said application by staying issuance of warrant against the petitioner for some period and directing the petitioner to surrender within the said period before the Court below and move for regular bail. It was also observed by this Court that in the event the petitioner does not surrender within the said period, the directions issued under Sections 82 and 83 Cri. P.C. operative. The petitioner, thereafter, surrendered before the learned S. D. J. M. on 25-6-2007 and moved for bail. The said prayer being rejected, the petitioner moved the learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack, who also rejected his prayer for bail and, thereafter, the petitioner moved BLAPL No. 7038 of 2007 before this Court under Section 439 Cri. P.C.

3. Hearing of the said petition was concluded on 11-10-2007. The Puja vacation having intervened, judgment of the said bail application was delivered on 21-11-2007.

4. This Court, while disposing of the said bail application considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and the State, the materials available in the case diary produced before this Court, as well the reasons assigned by the learned Sessions Judge while rejecting the prayer for bail. Considering all aspects of the matter, this Court dismissed the bail application by the said judgment dated 21-11-2007.

5. In the interregnum, charge sheet was filed against the petitioner and other accused persons for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 406/408/467/468/ 420/120-B/34 IPC. However, investigation was kept open on the prayer of the prosecution under Section 173 (8) Cr. P.C. Upon filing of the charge sheet, the petitioner moved for bail, afresh, before the learned S.D.J.M. The same being rejected, he moved the learned Sessions Judge, who having rejected the prayer for bail, the petitioner has approached this Court in the present bail application under Section 439 Cr. P.C.

6. Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case