ORDER
A.L. Dave, J.
1. This is a successive bail application preferred by the applicant advancing a change of circumstance in the form of his acquittal in two of the cases.
2. Learned advocate has drawn attention of this Court towards the order passed by this Court on 11th May, 2005 in Criminal Misc. Applications No. 4844 and 4846 of 2005, which runs as under:
Applicant’s involvement in the offence under Section 394 of IPC is prima facie made out. The applicant’s involvement is there on same day in two cases. The FIR is lodged almost immediately where his involvement is indicated. This Court is, therefore, not inclined to entertain these applications. Applications stand rejected.
3. It is submitted that this Court rejected the application on the ground that the applicant was involved in two other cases. Now that the applicant is acquitted in those two cases, this Court may admit the applicant to bail on the changed circumstance.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Prachchhak, has opposed this application. He submitted that, apart from involvement of the applicant in two other cases, this Court also took into consideration the involvement of the applicant in the present offence. The offence is of serious nature, no subsequent change in circumstance is indicated so far as the case is concerned and, therefore, the applicant’s application may be rejected.
5. The applicant is facing charges for offences punishable under Section 394 of I.P.C. and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The loot was worth Rs. 33,200/- approximately. But that should hardly matter, it could have been more or it could have been less. The applicant came to be apprehended on-the-spot and, therefore, his involvement in the offence is, prima facie, made out. So far as this aspect is concerned, there is no change in circumstance. His involvement in two other cases was only one of the factors which also weighted with this Court.
6. The fact that the applicant is in jail since December 2004 is also canvassed by learned Advocate for the applicant. However, in light of the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Kalyanchandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977, and Surinder Singh v. State of Panjab , this Court is of the view that this application cannot be entertained on that count either. The application stands rejected. Rule is discharged.