JUDGMENT : L.K. Mishra, J. - The petitioners are accused persons in G.R. Case No. 439 of 2008 pending in the Court of Learned J.M.F.C, Barbil involving offence under Sections 452/341/323/427/34 of the I.PC. read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 2. Heard Learned Counsel for both sides on the question of bail. Perused the records. 3. Bail is prayed for on the ground that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioners. The Learned Addl. Standing Counsel has opposed bail on the ground that the petitioners along with co-accused namely Rinku Chugh were earlier denied bail by this Court on 5.11.08 in BLAPL No. 14574 of 2008 and no fresh ground is available at present. 4. A perusal of the record shows that the present petitioners along with Rinku Chugh were denied bail by this Court as mentioned above. No fresh ground has been taken in the present bail petition nor was advanced at the time of argument. It is trite to say that the principles of res judicata is not applicable to an application for bail and such applications may be filed more than once. However, every successive bail application must be based on a changed circumstance entitling the petitioners to bail. In other words even though bail is rejected once, the petitioner may approach the Court again for bail on the basis of changed circumstances basing on which he may be granted bail. Such changed circumstances may consist of examination of new witnesses by the I.O. throwing fresh light on the culpability of the petitioner or unearthing of some evidence by the Investigating Agency which exonerates the petitioner or at least reduces his culpability. It maybe of a different nature such as his own illness or illness of his relative or some unforeseen exigency like death in the family or a forthcoming interview or even a natural calamity. The list is endless and cannot be catalogued. 5. Earlier, the petitioners were denied bail on merit. Therefore, it cannot be said at present that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioners. Sri S.S. Swain, Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on the earlier occasion the petition was not argued properly and now he is prepared to place the matter in its proper prospective. He has claimed that this is a change d circumstance entitling the petitioners to bail. Sri S.S. Swain, Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on the earlier occasion the petition was not argued properly and now he is prepared to place the matter in its proper prospective. He has claimed that this is a change d circumstance entitling the petitioners to bail. This argument is fallacious and is not sustainable. If such arguments were to be accepted then there will be no end to a litigation since each time a new lawyer may come and claim that the earlier lawyer had not argued the matter properly and he himself should be allowed to argue the matter again. No changed circumstances being projected, the petitioners are not entitled to bail. Accordingly, their prayer for bail is rejected. 6. The BLAPL is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed