Judgment N. K. JAM, J. ( 1 ) MR. BHOOT, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while dismissing the earlier bail application on 19. 11. 1992 this Court has erred in relying on the observations made at the time of dismissal of second bail application on 28. 4. 1992 that possibility of petitioners fleeing oat from the hands of justice cannot also be completely ruled out particularly when the Court itself gave liberty to the petitioners to file fresh bail application after the statement of alleged eye witnesses arc recorded. He also submits that there arc clear cut contradictions between the oral and documentary evidence and, therefore, the petitioners arc entitled to be bailed out to produce the witnesses in defence. He further submits that the petitioners may be granted bail and some conditions may be imposed to secure their presence. He has placed reliance on Babu Singh v. State of U. P. and State of Rajasthan. Jaipur v. Balchand Baliay. ( 2 ) ON the other hand Mr. Singhvi, learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that looking to the nature of offence, the petitioners cannot be released on bail on any pretext at this stage. He has placed reliance on State of Maharashtra v. Captain Budhikota Subha Rao. In rejoinder. Mr. Bhoot submits that this case is not applicable to the facts of the present case. ( 3 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant record as well as the case law. ( 4 ) AS regards the contention that as soon as permission to file fresh bail application was granted, the observation regarding fleeing out of the petitioners automatically ceased, it is not proper for me to interpret as those observations made by Honble Saxena, J. For me suffice it to say that the observations were made by me while dismissing the earlier bail application, as the counsel for the petitioner could rebut the same, which is clear from a perusal of the order dated 19. 11. 1992 and further the earlier application was not dismissed by me on this court alone. Therefore, this contention has no substance. 11. 1992 and further the earlier application was not dismissed by me on this court alone. Therefore, this contention has no substance. ( 5 ) SO far as the other contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner are concerned, I have gone through relevant record and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case at this stage, from the nature of evidence it cannot be said that there is a prima facie case for bail. The earlier bail application was filed by the petitioners on the ground that they may be enlarged on bail for the purpose of finding out the defence witnesses who were identifiable by P. Ws. 1. only, was dismissed by a detailed order on 19. 11. 1992 and no changed circumstance has been brought to my notice except an affidavit of son of the petitioner Haji Mukhtyar Ali suiting that the defence witnesses arc identifiable by the accused petitioners only, the same ground was there in the earlier application as aforesaid. Thus, in the absence of any change of circumstance and particularly when case from prosecution side is complete. I dont think it proper to consider this bail application afresh for releasing the petitioners even on conditions. ( 6 ) IN the result, this fifth bail application filed on 26,11. 1992 by the petitioner Abdul Valid and fourth by Haji Mukhtyar Ali is dismissed. Application dismissed.