ORDER The petitioner apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent/police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324 and 302 read with Section 120(B), I.P.C. in Crime No. 220 of 2007. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's name does not find place in the F.I.R. and he is implicated on the charge of conspiracy, but the occurrence had taken place only after a sudden quarrel and as such there could be no conspiracy earlier to the occurrence. The statement of witnesses in respect of the conspiracy were recorded three days after the occurrence and they are false witnesses. The learned counsel further submitted that though the earlier petition was dismissed, subsequently some of the accused were arrested and were released on bail ad while releasing the accused on bail in Crl. O.P. No. 36744 of 2007, it is observed that “the learned Government Advocate submits that the investigation is almost over.” 3. The learned Government Advocate submitted that the earlier application for anticipatory bail was dismissed by this Court only considering all the facts and circumstances and there is no change of circumstances. The eighth accused in this case whose anticipatory bail was dismissed was granted bail only after his arrest and remand. This second application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable, even though the investigation is almost over. The learned Government Advocate further added that there are witnesses to speak about the conspiracy and involvement of this petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision rendered by the Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court reported in Ganesh Raj v. State of Rajasthan and Others 2005 Crl. L.J. 2086. The question that was referred to the Full Bench for consideration was “Whether second or subsequent bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is maintainable or not e While considering the question, the Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, referred to number of decisions wherein the second anticipatory bail application was held not maintainable and also where the anticipatory bail was found to be maintainable. While so, some of the references made are as follows: “In Suresh Chand v. State of Rajasthan 2001 (2) RLR 757, it was held that after rejection of first bail application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. by the High Court, second anticipatory bail application was not maintainable. While so, some of the references made are as follows: “In Suresh Chand v. State of Rajasthan 2001 (2) RLR 757, it was held that after rejection of first bail application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. by the High Court, second anticipatory bail application was not maintainable. The single Judge indicated that the power to grant anticipatory bail does not flow from Article 21 of the Constitution of India, but it has been conferred by the statute enacted by the Parliament and the Parliament can, by amending the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or by enacting special law take it away also. Even this provision can be omitted by the State Amendment and such amendment will not have the effect of depriving a person of his personal liberty. It was further observed that the Law Commission intended that the provisions of anticipatory bail should not be put to abuse at the instance of unscrupulous petitioners and this extraordinary remedy has to be resorted to only in exceptional cases.” Full Bench of Calcutta High Court is Maya Rani Guin v. State of West Bengal , 2003 Crl. L.J. 1, indicated that entertaining a second application for anticipatory bail would amount to review or reconsideration of the earlier order passed by a Division Bench having co-ordinate jurisdiction, as the accusation remains unchanged. The accusation being the since qua non and which remains the same, there cannot be any revival of ‘reasons to believe” or apprehension of arrest which was considered by Court in the earlier application for anticipatory bail. The accusation being the since qua non and which remains the same, there cannot be any revival of ‘reasons to believe” or apprehension of arrest which was considered by Court in the earlier application for anticipatory bail. Thus, the second application for anticipatory bail, even if new circumstances develop after rejection or disposal of the earlier application, is not maintainable.” “In Ramgopal v. State of Rajasthan 1983 Cr LR (Raj) 217, learned single Judge of this Court held that the second bail application should not be entertained in routine, but if there are some circumstances which were not before the Court when the earlier bail application was rejected or some additional grounds or there are some further development and different considerations and if some more details are available at a later stage the second bail application is maintainable.” “In Bhagwan Singh v. State 1990 RCC 565, second anticipatory bail application was granted on the ground that while rejecting first bail application the petitioner was directed to appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation but no active steps were taken either to arrest the petitioner or to obtain a search warrant for making seizure of the remaining articles alleged to have been misappropriated by the petitioner.” Further it is observed in Paragraph-19 as follows: “ 19. Very recently considering the liberty of an individual the Apex Court in Kalyan Chandra Barkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav 2005 I Apex Decisions (SC) 640 : 2005 Cri LJ 944 propounded thus at para 17, page 949 of Cri L.J.:- “It is trite law that personal liberty cannot be taken away except in accordance with the procedure established by law, personal liberty is a constitutional guarantee. However, Article 21 which guarantees the above right also contemplates deprivation of personal liberty by procedure established by law. Under the criminal laws of this country a person accused of offences which are non bailable is liable, to be detained in custody during the pendency of trial unless he is enlarged on bail in accordance with law. Such detention cannot be questioned as being violative of Article 21 since the same is authorised by law. Under the criminal laws of this country a person accused of offences which are non bailable is liable, to be detained in custody during the pendency of trial unless he is enlarged on bail in accordance with law. Such detention cannot be questioned as being violative of Article 21 since the same is authorised by law. But even persons accused of non bailable offences are entitled for bail if the Court concerned comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against him and or if the Court is satisfied for reasons to be recorded that in spite of the existence of prima facie case there is a need to release such persons on bail where fact situation require it to do so. In that process a person whose application of enlargement on bail is once rejected is not precluded from filing a subsequent application for grant of bail if there is a change in the fact situation. In such cases, if the circumstances then prevailing requires that such persons to be released on bail, in spite of his earlier applications being rejected, the Courts can do so.” Their Lordships further observed in para 18 as under:- “………. Ordinarily, he issues which had been canvassed earlier would not be permitted to be re-agitated on the same grounds, as it would lead to a speculation and uncertainity in the administrationof justice and may lead to forum hunting.” In para 19 it was indicated thus:- “……………. Therefore, even though there is room for filling a subsequent bail application in cases where earlier applications have been rejected the same can be done if there is a change in the fact situation or in law which requires the earlier view being interfered with or 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.” Ultimately, the Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court concluded and answered the references as follows in paragraph-25: “ 25. In the ultimate analysis, placing reliance on the ratio indicated in (supra), we hold that second or subsequent bail application under Section 430 Cr.P.C. can be filed if there is a change in the fact situation or in law which requires the earlier view being interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete. In the ultimate analysis, placing reliance on the ratio indicated in (supra), we hold that second or subsequent bail application under Section 430 Cr.P.C. can be filed if there is a change in the fact situation or in law which requires the earlier view being interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete. This is the limited are 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 circumstance, 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 SessionsJudge/Additional Sessions Judge.” 5. This Court readily follows the decision by the Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Ganesh Raj v. State of Rajasthan (supra). Personal liberty and social justice are the two wheels and it is the duty of the Court to see that both the wheels run parallel. The provisions of the anticipatory bail should not be put to abuse and the Court is duty bound that investigational right of the police is not infringed. 6. In this case, from the arguments advanced by the petitioners as this Court does not find change in the fact situation or in law, in order to, interfere in the earlier finding, this application for anticipatory bail is dismissed. Petition dismissed.