P. K. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) THE two petitioners in Criminal Misc. Case No. 305/96 are in custody in connection with S. P. E. Case No. 44 of 1994. ( 2 ) ON the, basis of the FIR of one Anwar Khan, Tomka P. S. Case No. 50/- 1993 corresponding to G. R. Case No. 332/93 in the file of the S. D. J. M. Jaipur Road, was registered under sections 147, 148, 149, 368, 328, 325 and 506, Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act. In the said FIR which was first submitted before the Incharge Officer, Kalapani Police Outpost, it was alleged that some people belonging to Janata Dal forcibly took Shyamapada Rout to the quarters of Samrat Gupta Chakradhar Alda, Bharat Mohant, Bhagaban Mohant, Gobardhan Mohant, Sabir Mian. Bhagaban Pradhan and 29 to 30 hired goondas of Bihar were stated to be the culprits. The date of occurrence was alleged to be Saturday, 24-7-1993, and the FIR was given on 26-7-1993. Subsequently, the victim Shyamapada Rout could not be traced up and on the basis of the petition filed by the wife of Shyamapada Rout. the Supreme Court directed the CBI to take up investigation. ( 3 ) THE CBI after investigation filed charge-sheet against eight accused persons including the present petitioner under sections 120b. , 302, 364 and 201, Indian Penal Code. ( 4 ) THE two petitioners had earlier filed Criminal Misc. Case No. 1365 of 1995, which was rejected by this Court vide order dated 12-7-1995. Subsequently. petitioner Narendra Kumar Dhir filed Criminal Misc. Case No. 2663/95 and petitioner Prabodh Kumar Dhir filed Criminal Misc. Case No. 2827/95 and both the applications were rejected by this Court vide separate orders dated 28-11- 1995. The present application is the third application for bail so far as the two petitioners in Criminal Misc. Case No. 305/96 are concerned. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the two petitioners had not been implicated in the original FIR lodged by Anwar Khan and they are also not implicated in any manner whatsoever by the Approver. Thakur Majhi, in the alleged crime. Case No. 305/96 are concerned. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the two petitioners had not been implicated in the original FIR lodged by Anwar Khan and they are also not implicated in any manner whatsoever by the Approver. Thakur Majhi, in the alleged crime. It is further submitted that though the case has been committed to the Sessions Judge, there is no possibility of the trial being taken up in the near future as there is grave doubt regarding the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge, Pun, to try the case. ( 6 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the CBI has opposed the bail application. He has submitted that the earlier applications of the petitioners having been rejected on two occasions, there is no scope for entertaining the third bail application. He further submitted that though the Approver has not implicated the said petitioners, there are other materials on record to indicate that the two petitioners were involved at the time of abduction of the victim Shyamapada Rout and since the entire crime is the culmination of a conspiracy, there is no scope for releasing the petitioners on bail. He has further submitted that in the meantime, another witness who had given statement under section 164, Cr. P. C. has committed suicide, obviously being threatened by some of the culprits and release of any of the accused persons at this stage is likely to prejudice the prosecution. ( 7 ) LAW is well settled that rejection of bail application on earlier occasion does not stand as a bar for consideration of subsequent applications for bail. A second application for bail giving more details and on the basis of subsequent developments can be considered. It is apparent in the present cases that there is no possibility of the trial of the case being taken up in the near future due to imbroglio regarding the jurisdiction. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the C. B. I. has fairly submitted that it is doubtful whether the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar, can try the offences and. in fact, the records have been sent back by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar to the Sessions Judge, Pun He has further submitted that steps are being taken to commit the case to the appropriate Sessions Court having jurisdiction. in fact, the records have been sent back by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar to the Sessions Judge, Pun He has further submitted that steps are being taken to commit the case to the appropriate Sessions Court having jurisdiction. ( 8 ) ORDINARILY, subsequent bail application filed by an accused should have been placed before the same learned Judge who had disposed off the earlier bail application. In the present case, the first application had been rejected by Honble Mr. R. K. Patra, J. , and the subsequent application had been rejected by Honble D. M. Patnaik, J. , Since the aforesaid two learned Judges were sitting in separate Division Benches at the relevant time the present bail application has been placed before me in course of the normal arrangement of listing of cases made in the High Court. Since the connected bail application in Criminal Misc. Case No. 897 of 1996 which has been filed at the instance of three other accused persons for the first time, was being heard by me. I thought it fit to hear both the cases together. However, to avoid confusion separate orders are being passed. ( 9 ) SO far as the two petitioners in Criminal Misc. Case No. 305/1996 are concerned, they had not been implicated in the FIR in me alleged act of abduction, nor they have been implicated by the approver or any other witness in the alleged murder. It is true that some witnesses have implicated these two petitioners in the alleged abduction which took place on 24-7-1993, but the said allegation is in a general manner. As already indicated, in the original FIR filed by Anwar Khan, these petitioners were not implicated in any manner and the materials regarding alleged conspiracy so far as these two petitioners are concerned appear to be meagre. Keeping in view of the aforesaid aspects and the fact that they are in custody for about fifteen months and there is very slight chance of the commencement of the trial in the near further. I consider it a fit case where they should be released on bail subject to certain stringent conditions. It is, therefore, directed that the petitioner in Criminal Misc. Case No. 305/96 may be released on bail of Rs. 25,000/- each with two sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar, in SPE. I consider it a fit case where they should be released on bail subject to certain stringent conditions. It is, therefore, directed that the petitioner in Criminal Misc. Case No. 305/96 may be released on bail of Rs. 25,000/- each with two sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar, in SPE. Case No. 44 of 1994. The said petitioners should not leave the jurisdiction of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. Bhubaneswar, without taking prior permission from the Investigating Officer and they should report before the Investigating Officer in the CBI Office every day between 4 p. m. and 6 p. m. ( 10 ) IT is made clear that the Trial Court shall not be influenced by any observations made in this order. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of accordingly. Misc. Case disposed of accordingly.