A. L. DAVE, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a second successive application being preferred by the applicant in light of liberty granted by the Apex Court while dismissing the Special Leave Petition for bail bearing No. 1472 of 2005 by order dated 1. 4. 2005. ( 2 ) THE applicant is facing charges for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 120b of Indian Penal Code. His bail application came to be rejected by this Court. Thereafter he preferred Criminal Misc. Application No. 1311 of 2005 which also came to be rejected by this Court being successive bail application by order dated 18. 2. 2005. Thereafter the applicant approached the Apex Court by preferring SLP No. 1472 of 2005 and the Apex Court passed the following order: heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. We may, however, observe that in case the trial is not concluded within a period of one year, it would be open to the petitioner to move the High Court afresh for grant of bail. If such an application is filed, the same shall be considered on its own merits. ( 3 ) LEARNED Advocate for the applicant submitted that one year has elapsed since passing of the order by the Apex Court but the trial has not commenced and, therefore, the applicant s case for bail may be considered on merits. Mr Patel submitted further that the applicant was released on temporary bail and during that period, he could dispose of some property and make some payment to the Bank. He, now further proposes to do the same and, therefore, his case may be considered. ( 4 ) THE application is opposed to by the learned APP, Mr Prachhak. ( 5 ) THIS being a successive bail application, it can be considered on merits, if substantial change of circumstances is shown. It is true that the trial has not commenced but the Rojkam indicates that one or the other accused persons, though they belong to the same family, has consistently remained absent before the Court and the Court was even constrained to issue warrant against them. It, therefore, does not lie in the mouth of the applicant to say that because the trial has not commenced his case may be considered on merits. It, therefore, does not lie in the mouth of the applicant to say that because the trial has not commenced his case may be considered on merits. ( 6 ) NO other change of circumstances is indicated which can be considered as substantial change and which may have direct impact on earlier decision of this Court and, therefore, this successive bail application cannot be considered favourably. In this regard, reference may be had to the decision in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao reported in AIR 1989 SC 2292 . ( 7 ) THE readiness of the applicant to make attempt to make some repayment to the Bank may not be a relevant consideration at this stage and, therefore also, the application cannot be considered. Since it is found that the applicant s case on merits has been rejected by the Court and the rejection is confirmed by the Apex Court, the application must fail and it stands rejected accordingly.