ORDER 1. Arguments heard. 2. There r being arrested in connection with Crime No.578/98 registered , II, Oamoh (M.P.) in respect of offences punishable under sections -- 9, 120-B read with section 34 of the IPC and also under sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, the applicant is in judicial custody. The corresponding trial is pending as ST No.64/99 in the Court of IV ASJ, Damoh. 3. This is a repeat application for grant of bail. The earlier one was dismissed on merits vide order dated 25.3.2008 passed in MCrC No.11557/07. However, as observed in the order dated 16.7.2008, the applicant has been able to secure his release on bail for a period of 30 days by suppressing the factum of rejection of his bail application on merits by this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has strenuously contended that he is entitled to bail as he has not misused the liberty granted by the trial Court by way of the order dated 20.5.2008. 5. The contentions is, apparently, mis-conceived as the temporary release was secured by violating the guidelines laid down by Hon'ble the M.P. High Court in Hari Mohan Dixit v. State of M.P [1986(II) MPWN 58], and reiterated in Suresh Mota Chenwala v. State of M.P [1986 MPU 659], Daini @ Raju v. State of M.P [ 1989 JLJ 323 ], Munnidevi v. Sessions Judge, Gwalior [ 1993 MPLJ 310 ], and State of M.P v. R.P Gupta [2000(1) MPWN 93]. It is relevant to note that a circular has also been issued by Hon 'ble the High Court on its administrative side to enforce compliance with the direction contained in the decision rendered in R.P Gupta's case (supra). 6. Accordingly, it is not possible to entertain any bail application unless the full particulars of person, who has given instructions in writing to move the application, and the fact pertaining to earlier attempts and pendency of bail application, if any, before Hon 'ble the High Court are placed on record by way of affidavit. For this, a particular reference may be made to the following observations made by Hon'ble Mr. For this, a particular reference may be made to the following observations made by Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti (as his Lordship then was) in Daini @ Raju's case (supra) : "A bail application is expected to incorporate a statement as to all facts and circumstances considered relevant by the applicant in support of his prayer so that whatever is put forth before the Court does not vanish in thin air, but is retained in the record, though there is no format prescribed for all bail applicants; if any statement likely to be controverted by the opposite party, the party would do well to support its statement by an affidavit or documents, as advised." 7. It is true that, on an earlier occasion, concession of bail to the applicant vide order dated 26.10.1999 passed in MCrC : 99 but he flagrantly violated conditions thereof by remaining absence considerable period of time. Further, no material change of the circumstances of the case has occurred after rejection of the previous application. 8. In such a situation, cognizance of the abuse of the process resulting into a conflicting order by the trial Court, though granting temporary release on bail, was taken. Accordingly, vide order dated 16.7.2008, the learned trial Judge was directed to make an inquiry into the matter, after giving opportunity of hearing to the applicant, his counsel and the public prosecutor-in-charge of the case and to fix up responsibility for the