ORDER R.S. Garg, J. Heard 1. Diary of Crime No. 162/98 of police station Sahaspur Lohara, Distt. Kawardha, for offence punishable under Section 379 IPC perused. 2. It appears that somewhere between 7-12-98 and 9-12-98 Telephone cables were stolen; thereafter, co-accused was arrested, who in his memorandum made certain allegations against the present applicant. The applicant was arrested on 15-5-2000, but no recoveries were made from him. Barring the statement of the co-accused contained in the memorandum under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, the case diary does not contain any other evidence to connect the applicant with the alleged crime. 3. It is most unfortunate that in a case like present, the Court below did not consider present to be a fit case for admitting the applicant to bail. Even though he is in jail for last more than 10 months. This Court had been repeatedly saying that changed circumstances is not a simple technical term. It is unfortunate that the Courts below are rejecting the repeat application simply on the ground that there were no changed circumstances. The delay in disposal of trial, delay in examination of the witnesses, non- appearance of the witnesses, gravity of the offence, pre-trial detention and myriad examples can provide the changed circumstances. Simply writing that there are no changed circumstances would not justify the rejection of a repeat application for grant of bail. It is not expected of a judicial officer that he would simply reject the application observing that there are no changed circumstances. 4. I fail to understand that when can be treated to be changed circumstances, if above referred are not. A judge while considering the repeat application is not denuded of his powers to grant the bail. It is expected of a Court to be alive to the Court procedure and delay which is generally occurring in disposal of the trail. The detention of a person for some time in a given case may justify the rejection of the application, but such rejection should not ordinarily seal the fate of the accused for all the times to come till disposal of the trial. 5. The application is allowed. 6. It is directed that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5. The application is allowed. 6. It is directed that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 7000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kawardha, for his appearance before the said Court/committal Court/trial Court or as and where so directed. 7. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Addl. Sessions Judge, Kawardha for future guidance.