S. K. AGAFEWAL, J. ( 1 ) BY this application under section 438 cr. P. C. petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail, in. the case FIR No. 263/2005 under sections 419/420/468/471ipc and section 12 of the passport Act, p. S. IGI Airport, Delhi. This is the third application for grant of anticipatory bail. Notice. Mr. Pawan Sharma, accepts notice on behalf of the State. ( 2 ) WHEN petitioner s first bail application (No. 1498/2005) came up for hearing on 21. 7. 2005 before Hon ble Mrjustice Pradeep nandrajog, learned counsel for the petitioner argued the matter for some time and sought permission to withdraw the application. The application was dismissed as not pressed. Petitioner s second bail application (No. 223~/ 2005) came up for hearing on 7. 9. 2005 before this Court, as there was change of roster in the meantime. Learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing the matter again sought permission to withdraw the application. It was dismissed as withdrawn. Petitioner did not surrender and has been absconding. This application was filed on 4. 1. 2006. . Learned counsel submits that earlier two applications were dismissed as withdrawn and that there is no order on merits. It is pleaded that there are fresh grounds; the application IS not mala fide and petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed. The question which arises for consideration is whether the accused can continue to abscond and can he be permitted to seek relief of anticipatory bail, with the change or expected change of Court s roster?. Mr. R. S. Malik, advocate, present in the Court was appointed as an Amicus Curiae to assist in the matter. ( 3 ) PROSECUTION allegations are that on 4. 5. 2005, one passenger Gaurav Pai, an Indian national having passport No. 0568545 dated 29. 1. 2004 issued by the Delhi Passport Office, reported at counter NO. l at the IGI Airport immigration Clearance. On scrutiny, his passport was found to be forged. A case was registered and he was put under arrest. He stated that his real name was Gurnek Singh and he was resident of Punjab. His passport was arranged by the petitioner and he also revealed petitioner s name, address, and telephone numbers during interrogation. He further stated that his father had paid money to the petitioner for arranging the passport and that he had paid only Rs. He stated that his real name was Gurnek Singh and he was resident of Punjab. His passport was arranged by the petitioner and he also revealed petitioner s name, address, and telephone numbers during interrogation. He further stated that his father had paid money to the petitioner for arranging the passport and that he had paid only Rs. 50,000/- towards the tickets and that he was sent to spain on 22. 4. 2005 as a performer in a group, which was led by one Amrik Singh. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner first argued that after the petitioner was granted protection; he participated in the investigations on number of dates; and nothing incriminating was recovered from his possession or at his instance. It was argued that as the passenger has changed the name from Gurnek Singh to Gaurav Pal, he gave the earlier name under erroneous impression. Petitioner has now filed a certificate of SGPC about the change of his name and this is a fresh ground, therefore, he is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. Learned counsel further argued that earlier applications were dismissed as withdrawn and that petitioner has not concealed any fact and there is no mala fide on his part. ( 5 ) LEARNED APPfor the State argued to the contrary submitting that there are large number of such cases. Petitioner s name, address and telephone numbers were disclosed by the passenger and that other persons who are connected or concerned with arranging forged passports are yet to be located and interrogated, therefore, custodial interrogation of petitioner is required. Learned amicus Curiae argued that the practice of repeatedly filing applications for anticipatory bail should be discouraged and in suitable cases costs can be imposed. In support of his submission, reliance is placed on Govind and ors. Vs. State of Delhi, 2003 III AD (DELHI) 525 = 2003 (2) JCC 1030; Parikai Bansal vs. State of Punjab, 2004 Crl. L. 1 NOC 202; and Vansh Bahadur Sinah Vs. State, 1998 IV AD (DELHI) 741 = 1998 (2) JCC (Delhi) 39. ( 6 ) IT is true that petitioner s earlier two bail applications were dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed, but this really does not matter. L. 1 NOC 202; and Vansh Bahadur Sinah Vs. State, 1998 IV AD (DELHI) 741 = 1998 (2) JCC (Delhi) 39. ( 6 ) IT is true that petitioner s earlier two bail applications were dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed, but this really does not matter. In several cases, after the matter is argued at length and when the Court is about to dictate an order, on the request of learned counsel, petitions are permitted to be withdrawn. Such like orders are generally orders on merits and petitioner cannot be heard saying that tli8m was no order on merits. The contention is accordingly rejected. Petitioner has been named by the co-accused who was arrested at the Airport with the forged passport. Prosecution s case that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to find out who are the other persons involved cannot be said to be without any basis. Them is 110 merit in the petition. ( 7 ) THERE cannot be any dispute that accused cannot be permitted to seek the relief of anticipatory bail repeatedly on the change -or the expected change of Court s roster. It clearly amounts to 8;. n abuse of process of Court and has to be discouraged. No fault can be found with the learned counsel, but the Court cannot have any sympathy for the petitioner who has been avoiding arrest despite proceedings under section 82 and 83 Cr. P. C. having been initiated against him. The application lacks bona fides. Law with regard to imposition of costs is settled by the Supreme Court in Marv Anael and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1999 sc 2245 , wherein it was observed that the court has inherent powers under section 482 cr. P. C. to pass such orders (not inconsistent with any provision of the Code ). including the order for costs in appropriate cases. It was held:"in the result, we hold that while exercising inherent jurisdiction under section 482, Court has power to pass such orders (not inconsistent with any provision of the Code) including the order for costs in appropriate cases, (i) to give effect to any order passed under the Code or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court of (iii) otherwise to secure the ends of justice. As stated above, thi. As stated above, thi. extraordinary power is to be used in extraordinary circumstances and in a judicious manner. Costs may be to meet the litigation expenses or can be exemplary to achieve the aforesaid purposes. " ( 8 ) IN the facts and. circumstances of this case, the application for grant of anticipatory bail is dismissed with costs of Rs. 15,000/ -. .