Judgment : Heard both counsel. This is a bail petition filed by the petitioner/A-15 under Sec.439 of Crl.P.C. to release him on bail pending committal proceedings in P.R.C.No.18 of 1996 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.II, at Nagercoil. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenously contended that there are 11 named accused in the F.I.R. and some other unnamed accused in the F.I.R. and the date of occurrence is 4. 1996 and the petitioner was arrested on 14. 1996 and one Lingam, a notorious criminal of Nagercoil was done to death in the Sub-Jail at Nagercoil and he has got number of enemies and the petitioner’s name was not found in the F.I.R. and the co-accused was released on bail in Crl.O.PNo.4904 of 1996 by the High Court of Madras by an order dated 27. 1996 and so also eight more accused were released by the committal Magistrate i.e., Judicial Magistrate, No.II at Nagercoil by an order dated 19. 1996 in Crl.M.P.No.2216 of 1996 and in those circumstances the petitioner/A15 should be larged on bail. 3. The learned Government Advocate opposed this bail application by stating that the petitioner/A-15 is one of the members of the unlawful assembly in the Sub Jail at Nagercoil and he along with other accused caused injuries to four persons out of whom two died, and according to the prosecution the petitioner/A-15 hired a tempo van and wrongfully confined the driver of the tempo van and the petitioner had driven the tempo van’ and dashed against the compound wall of the Sub-Jail and the petitioner along with the other accused criminally trespassed into the Sub-Jail at Nagercoil and formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and the petitioner caused Jamage to the Key Board in the Sub-Jail at Nagercoil and broke open the cell No.8 where the deceased Lingam was an inmate of the Jail who was mercilessly killed. It was further contended by the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner/A-15 was concerned in another case for an offence under Sec.302 of I.P.C. in Crime No.320 of 1995 of Aralvaimozhy police station which was taken on file as P.R.C.No.12 of 1997 by the Judicial Magistrate No.III at Nagercoil and he was concerned in yet another case for the offence under Sec.5 of the Explosives Substances Act in Crime No.21 of 1996 on the file of Beethapandi Police station, and the petitioner was released on bail by the Judicial Magistrate No.III, at Nagercoil in P.R.C.No.12 of 1997 with a condition that he should report before the respondent police every day and the petitioner complied with the above condition till 1. 1996 and thereafter he jumped bail on 1. 1996 and then only this occurrence had taken place on 4. 1996 and so the petitioner has bad antecedents and he should not be enlarged on bail. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the F.I.R. in this case in P.R.C.No.18 of 1996 wherein we could not find the name of the petitioner out of 11 named accused persons. The learned counsel for the petitioner had further drawn my attention to the allegations in the F.I.R. in the words Therefore these allegations in the F.I.R. will not implicate the petitioner/A-15 by name Suyambu and in these circumstances he is innocent of the offences. Likewise the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no reference at all to the petitioner by name Suyambu in the statement of one witness by name Ramesh examined by the police. 5. The learned Government Advocate repudiated the above arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner by stating that during investigation the name of the petitioner has come to the light as one involved in this crime, and that is why in the remand report submitted to the Judicial Magistrate No.II at Nagercoil a reference is made to the petitioner as one of the members of the conspirators and the petitioners/A-15 along with others formed an unlawful assembly and stormed into the Sub Jail at Nagercoil and this is evident from the words in the remand report. and the words and therefore during investigation enough materials were collected and they would implicate the petitioner/A-15 also in this case for the alleged offences under Secs.147, 148, 448, 342, 332, 324, 307 and 302 of I.P.C. and Sec.25(1) of Indian Arms Act and if the petitioner/A-15 is released on bail, he is likely to abscond as he has already jumped bail one in another case of murder under Sec.302 of I..P.C. in P.R.C.No.12 of 1997 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.III at Nagercoil which relates to Crime No.320 of 1995 on the file of Aralvaimozhy police station. 6. The matter was examined in detail by me by giving due consideration to the points raised by both the counsel. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the relevant materials submitted by the petitioner’s counsel in the shape of typed-set of papers and additional typed-set of papers, I am of opinion that the petitioner cannot be enlarged on bail for the following reasons. The materials collected by the investigating agency in this P.R.C.No.18 of 1996 will prima facie show that the petitioner/A-15 is one of the members of the unlawful assembly and he participated in the occurrence that took place in respect of storming into the sub-jail at Nagercoil even though there is no reference to the name of the petitioner/ A-15 in the F.I.R. and even though he is not one of the named accused persons in the F.I.R. The offences complained of in this case are serious in nature. Already the petitioner/A-15 jumped bail in one another murder case in P.R.C.No.12 of 1997 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.III at Nagercoil as revealed by the additional typed-set of papers filed by the petitioner wherein we get the copy of the petition and order in Crl.M.P.No.534 of 1998 and in paras 5 and 6 of the petition it is revealed, that the petitioner was released on bail in the other murder case and he did not comply with the condition and so there is every reasonable apprehension on the part of investigating agency in this case in P.R.C.No.18 of 1996 that the petitioner is likely to abscond if he is released on bail. 7. No doubt the co-accused were released on bail in this case by this Lordship Mr.Justice C.Shivappa by an order dated 27. 7. No doubt the co-accused were released on bail in this case by this Lordship Mr.Justice C.Shivappa by an order dated 27. 1996 in Crl.O.P.No.4904 of 1996 and so also by an order dated 19. 1996 in Crl.M.P.No.22r6 of 1996 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III at Nagercoil, and a perusal of these orders will disclose that some of the accused were released on bail since the charge sheet could not be filed within 90 days and so some of the accused were released on bail under Sec.167(2) of Crl.P.C. This is evident from the order of His Lordship Mr.Justice C.Shivappa dated 27. 1996 in Crl.O.P.No.4904 of 1996, wherein it is stated as follows: “The learned Public Prosecutor conceded that the charge sheet has not been filed. Without adverting to the merits of the same, since the petitioner is entitled for a statutory bail, the petitioners shall be enlarged on bail.” Similarly the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III at Nagercoil in his order dated 9. 1996 in Crl.M.P.No.2216 of 1996 stated as follows: Consideration which would weigh with the court while dealing with the request for bail in view of the non-filing of the charge sheet under Sec.167(2) of Crl.P.C. need not be the same for appreciation to release another accused on bail after arrest and after filing of the charge sheet and on merits. Merely because the co-accused have been released on the basis of the non-filing of the charge sheet it cannot be contended that the same yardstick should be adopted for this accused who was arrested after the filing of the charge sheet or after the period of 90 days as mentioned in Sec.167(2) of Crl.P.C. 8. That apart this is the third bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner/A-15. The first bail application was filed by him in Crl.O.P.No.18021 of 1997 and the same was dismissed by me on 1. 1998. The petitioner filed the second bail application and it came up before His Lordship Mr.Justice A.Ramamurthi, who dismissed the same by an order dated 21. 1998 in Crl.O.P.No.1010 of 1998. Now this is the 3rd application filed by the petitioner. 1998. The petitioner filed the second bail application and it came up before His Lordship Mr.Justice A.Ramamurthi, who dismissed the same by an order dated 21. 1998 in Crl.O.P.No.1010 of 1998. Now this is the 3rd application filed by the petitioner. Filing of such successive bail applications has been deprecated by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in State of Maharashtra v. Captain Gudhikola, (1989) 3 S.C.C. 495, wherein it was laid down that the practice of filing successive bail applications should be discouraged unless there is substantial change in the facts and circumstances of the case. There is no substantial change in the facts and circumstances of the case from the date of dismissal of the earlier two bail applications. Considering all these facts and circumstances of the case I am of the view that the petitioner/A-15 is not entitled to the relief of bail, and so the 3rd application for bail filed by him in Crl.O.P.No.1742 of 1998 has to be dismissed and consequently I answer this point as against the petitioner/A-15. 9. In the result, this petition is dismissed.