JUDGMENT A.C. Upadhyay, J. 1. This is an application under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking pre-arrest bail on behalf of the accused Kushal Duwari in connection with Bokakhat PS Case No. 42 of 2009 under Sections 147,148,149,353,427 of the IPC read with Section 27(2) of the Arms Act, read with Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act. 2. I have heard Shri A.M. Mazumdar, learned senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Dihingiya, learned Counsel for the accused Petitioner. Also heard Mr. Z. Kamar, learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 3. This is second application submitted by the Petitioner for pre-arrest bail. Earlier application submitted by the Petitioner for pre arrest bail was rejected on 3.4.2009 in B.A. 1134/09 by the learned Single Bench after elaborate discussion on the entire gamut of affairs relating to the occurrence by carefully analyzing the submissions advanced by the respective learned Counsel. However with the consent of the learned Counsel a common order was passed in the case of the Petitioner together with the co-accused Mr. Jiten Gogoi, who had also applied for pre-arrest bail. 4. Immediately within 5 days after rejection of earlier application this application for pre arrest bail was submitted on the ground that learned Counsel did not represent the prayer made by the Petitioner separately and independently before the learned Single Bench in order to establish non-involvement of the Petitioner in the case. Further, it was contended that in the common order passed by the learned Single Bench, no reference of the Petitioner was made. 5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jonathan Nitin Brady v. State of West Bengal, reported in 8 SCC 660, submitted that satisfactory and convincing reason has to be established for the purpose of custodial interrogation of the accused and if at all, the interrogation necessary for the purpose of investigation can be done without taking the accused into custody, the anticipatory bail is required to be granted. 6. 6. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner citing yet another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka, reported in (2008) 3 SCC 753 submitted that the provision for anticipatory bail was introduced in the Code of Criminal Procedure because it was realized by the Parliament in its wisdom that false and frivolous cases are often filed against some persons and such persons have to go to jail because even if the first information report is false and frivolous a person has to obtain bail and for that he has to first surrender before the Magistrate and his bail application is heard only after several days after giving notice to the State. During this period, if the applicant is arrested and remanded to jail his reputation maybe irreparably tarnished and the reputation of a person is a valuable asset for him just as in law the goodwill of a firm is an intangible asset. 7. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner cited another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Naresh Kumar Yadav v. Ravindra Kumar and Ors., reported in (2008) 1 SCC 632 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the power exercisable under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure is somewhat extraordinary in character and it is only in exceptional cases where it appears that the person may be falsely implicated or where there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to otherwise misuse his liberty, then power is to be exercised under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure and as such, the pre-arrest bail should be of a limited duration. Thereafter, it should be left to the regular Court to deal with the matter on an appreciation of evidence placed before it after the investigation has made progress and the chargesheet is submitted. 8. Controverting the above submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that not a single decision cited above can be pressed into service to bail out the accused/Petitioner in this case, as because this second application for pre-arrest bail, has been filed without specifically pleading any new ground for availing the privilege of pre-arrest bail and further, there has been no substantial change in the fact situation since the occurrence took place. Instead, the learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that due to non-availability of the accused for custodial interrogation, the arms which were allegedly carried by the accused are yet to be recovered and further investigation in the case has not made any headway due to above reasons. 9. The learned Public Prosecutor cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 605 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when successive bail applications were rejected on merits there was no question of granting similar prayer which will mean virtually overruling the earlier decision without there being a change in fact-situation. The learned Public Prosecutor further submits emphasizing the decision aforenoted of Hon'ble Supreme Court that change in fact situation means a substantial change, which has a direct impact on the earlier decision and not merely cosmetic changes which are of little or of no consequence. 10. On perusal of the Case Diary, materials on record and also the order dated 03.04.09 passed in BA 1128 of 09, by learned Single Bench, no substantial change in fact situation could be noticed by this Court; neither any new ground has been set up by the Petitioner. The so called failure of the engaged Counsel to represent the case of the Petitioner properly before the learned Single Bench postulated by Petitioner can not be considered to be change in fact situation. No specific points of failure have been indicated. If such propositions as aforesaid are accepted to be grounds to reconsider second application for pre arrest bail it would imply acceptance of review petition on the failure of the learned Single Bench to appreciate the merit of the Petitioner's case. On the other hand, endorsement of such failures without specifics as new grounds for second pre-arrest bail petition would have the potential to trigger such other numerous applications. 11. It is further submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that he has been suffering from 'chronic arthritis' and was on treatment since 5.1.2009, which means, the Petitioner very well had the ailment even at the time of occurrence and so also at the time of filing of the earlier petition for pre arrest bail. 11. It is further submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that he has been suffering from 'chronic arthritis' and was on treatment since 5.1.2009, which means, the Petitioner very well had the ailment even at the time of occurrence and so also at the time of filing of the earlier petition for pre arrest bail. Therefore, this development of health condition of the Petitioner which was already in existence earlier cannot be given the status of substantial change in fact situation, to have direct bearing on the earlier decision. 12. In view of the above discussion and on perusal of the Case Diary, other materials on record and also the order dated 3.4.2009 passed in BA 1134 of 2009, this Court is of the considered view that there is no scope to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the accused Petitioner in this case. 13. Accordingly, the prayer for pre-arrest bail submitted on behalf of the accused Petitioner stands rejected. The Bail Application, accordingly, stands disposed of.