Judgment : 1. The petitioner apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 452, 302, 404, 212, 414, 109 of IPC and Section 3(b) of Explosive substance Act, 1908 read with 149 of IPC, in Crime No. 108 of 2008, on the file of the respondent police. 2. The case of the prosecution is that totally there are 15 accused in this case and accused 1 to 5 came near the residence of the deceased Desthan in a Maruthi 800 Car and a motor cycle and then threw country made bombs and assaulted the deceased with knives and caused his death on the spot. One of the accused taken away the gold chain weighing about 10 sovereigns from the body of the deceased. During investigation, it was revealed that A.14, Gunasekaran is the abettor of the offence. A. 15, Uma Shankar, petitioner herein abetted the offence by providing his Maruthi Car bearing Registration No.MH-OI-M-5601 for the commission of offence and harbored the other accused and disposed the gold chain of the deceased. 3. This is the third anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner. The applications in Crl. O.P. Nos. 17322 and 19776 of 2008 were dismissed on 27. 2008 and 18. 2008 respectively. Both the applications were dismissed by His Lordship Justice Mr. R. REGUPATHI only after considering the merits of the case elaborately. 4. It appears that the petitioner has involved in two other cases also registered for offence under Section 379 IPC in Crime No. 465 of 2006, on the file of the Udumalpet. Police Station and Crime No. 282 of 2008, on the file of the Mahlingapuram Police Station, Pollachi. 5. Mr. P.V.S. Giridhar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 19. 2008, the co accused A.5, A.7 to A.10, A.12 and A.13 were granted bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Puducherry and this should be considered as major change of circumstance and it is a consideration for granting anticipatory bail to this petitioner. .6. The learned counsel far the petitioner also relied on decision in Yuvaraj Gaud v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another (2004) Crl.L.J 4576 wherein in paragraph-11 it has been observed as follows: .“11. .6. The learned counsel far the petitioner also relied on decision in Yuvaraj Gaud v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another (2004) Crl.L.J 4576 wherein in paragraph-11 it has been observed as follows: .“11. From the aforesaid discussion and in view of the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court as well as the Division Bench of this High Court, it is clear that second application under Section 438, Cr.P.C, is not barred and is tenable but the same has to be considered on the parameters laid down by the Apex Court as well as by the Division Bench of this Court.” .7. The learned counsel also relied on a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court, Suresh Chandra Ramanlal v. State of Gujarat and Another (2008) 7 SCC 591 , wherein in paragraph-7, it has been observed as follows: .“7. The record would indicate that there are as many as forty-nine accused, who were arrested and each one of them has already been enlarged on bail. The Chairman, Vice-chairman, Managing Director, eleven other Directors, two General Managers, Accountant and as many s thirty loanees of the Bank have been enlarged on bail. The appellant, at the relevant time, was ex-Vice Chairman of the Bank and he had resigned in the year 1999 due to his deteriorating health.” 8. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that absolutely there is no change of circumstance in this case after dismissal of the earlier anticipatory bail petitions of this petitioner. The grant of bail to the co-accused by the learned Magistrate was only as per the provisions of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C, since the investigation was pending and those accused have been in custody for more than 90 days. The police also could not complete the investigation only because of the abscondance of this petitioner and the Maruthi Car and Gold Chain has to be recovered from this petitioner. 9. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) further submitted that bail petition in respect of Guna @ Gunasekaran was dismissed by this Court on 210. 2008 in Cri. O.P.No. 24326 of 2008. For release of an accused on bail, the release of the co-accused on bail may be considered, but not a compelling reason for the release of the other accused on bail. 2008 in Cri. O.P.No. 24326 of 2008. For release of an accused on bail, the release of the co-accused on bail may be considered, but not a compelling reason for the release of the other accused on bail. While so, the release of a co-accused on bail definitely not a ground for the release of the other co accused on anticipatory bail. The learned Government Advocate submitted that the custodial interrogation of this petitioner is very much necessary and the offence involved is grave in nature under Section 302 IPC. He also relied on the decision of this Honourable High Court in Balasubramanian v. State (2008) L.W. (Crl.) 381. .10. This Court considered the submission made by both parties. In the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Suresh Chandra Ramanlal v. State of Gujarat and Another (supra) the Honourable Supreme Court granted bail to the accused not merely on the ground that other co-accused were released on bail. The age of the accused in that particular case was 75 years and also he suffering from various ailments. .It is observed that Paragraph-8 that: 11. The Honourable Supreme Court has considered the distinction between the ordinary order of bail and an order of anticipatory bail in the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab AIR 1980 SC 1632 : (1980) SCC (Cr) 465, The anticipatory bail is only device to secure personal liberty and it is neither passport to the Commission of crime nor a shield against any and all kinds of accusations. It is only duty of the Court to apply its mind to the position and decide whether a case has been made out or not for granting anticipatory bail. 12. In this case, twice this Honourable High Court applying its mind categorically denied anticipatory bail to thin petitioner. Still this petitioner has filed the vexatious petition for anticipatory bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner also had vehemently made his submissions wasting the judicial time. 13. The Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Ganesh Raj v. State of Rajasthan and Others (2005) Crl. L.J 2086 has held as follows: “25. Still this petitioner has filed the vexatious petition for anticipatory bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner also had vehemently made his submissions wasting the judicial time. 13. The Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Ganesh Raj v. State of Rajasthan and Others (2005) Crl. L.J 2086 has held as follows: “25. In the ultimate analysis, placing reliance on the ratio indicated in Kalyan Chandra Sardar’s case supra we hold that second or subsequent bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C, can be filed if there is a change in the fact situation or in law which required the earlier view being interfered with of where the earlier finding has become obsolete. This is the limited area in which an accused who has been denied bail earlier, can move a subsequent application. Second or subsequent anticipatory bail application shall not be entertained on the ground of new circumstances, further developments, different considerations, some more details, new documents or illness of the accused. Under no circumstances the second or successive anticipatory bail application shall be entertained by the Sessions Judge/Additional Sessions Judge.” This Honourable High Court also followed the above said principle in Balasubramanian v. State (supra) 14. This Court holds that there is no change of circumstance for granting anticipatory bail and this third anticipatory bail petition is dismissed as vexatious and not maintainable, since earlier finding has become obsolete. The provision for anticipatory bail has been put to abuse by the petitioner. 15. In the above said circumstance, the petitioner is directed to pay a cost of Rs. 5,000/-within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.