Rameshwar Singh Malik J. (Oral) - Petitioner, by way of this second anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.' for short), seeks pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 115 dated 28.05.2012 under Sections 15, 61, 85 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Nakodar, District Jalandhar City.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He was not present at the place of occurrence. It was the reason that the petitioner was not apprehended at the spot. His co-accused is facing the criminal trial who is none else but the younger brother of the petitioner. So far as the other similar case bearing FIR No. 7 dated 09.01.2009 under Sections 15, 61, 85 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Mehatpur, District Jalandhar was concerened, petitioner had been acquitted by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jalandhar vide order dated 31.01.2011. On the maintainability of this petition, it being a second anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since it has been filed under the changed circumstances, it is maintainable. To substantiate his arguments on the maintainability of the second anticipatory bail application, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a Full Bench judgment of Rajasthan High Court in Ganesh Raj v. State of Rajasthan 2005 (3) RCR (Crl.) 30, a Division Bench judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Imratlal Vishwakarma v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1997 (1) Crimes 289 and a Division Bench judgment of Gauhati High Court in Runu Roy v. State of Assam, 2006 (3) AIC 742. He prays for allowing the present petition.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that present petition is wholly misconceived as well as not maintainable and the same is liable to the dismissed, for the following more than one reasons.

4. Petitioner is an accused along with his younger brother in the present case which is a NDPS matter. It is also a matter of record that the petitioner approached this Court earlier, by way of CRM-M-19256-2012 (Hardip Singh v. State of Punjab) which came to be dismissed by this Court on merits, vide order dated 05.07.2012 (Annexure P-5). Since then, petitioner is running away from the law for the last about 03 years.

5. During the course of hearing, when a pointed question was put to learned counsel for the petitioner, as to what was the change in the circumstances so as to make the second anticipatory bail application to be maintainable, he had no answer and rightly so because it was a matter of record. As a matter of fact, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any change much less material change, whatsoever, in the circumstances of the case from 05.07.2012, when his first anticipatory bail application was dismissed by this Court. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the present second anticipatory bail application is not maintainable.

6. So far the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, there is no dispute about the law laid down therein. However, on close perusal of the cited judgments, none of them has been found to be of any help to the petitioner, being distinguishable on facts. In fact, the Hon'bel Full Bench of Rajasthan High Court in Ganesh Raj's case (supra) has held that second anticipatory bail application would be maintainable, on the ground of new circumstances, further development, different considerations, new details and new documents. Thus, when applied to the facts of the present case, the ratio of Full Bench judgment rendered by the Rajasthan High Court, goes against the petitioner.

7. Similarly, the Division Bench of Madhya Prades