JUDGMENT 1. - This is second application under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by accused petitioner Baldev Singh @ Kala seeking anticipatory bail in relation to FIR No.551/2005 registered at Police Station Shahpura, District Jaipur for the offence under section 8/15 of the NDPS Act. 2. Heard learned counsel for accused petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the material placed during the course of arguments. 3. Learned counsel for the accused petitioner contended that after rejection of the first bail application there is substantial change in the circumstances. The main accused persons Bhagwan Singh alias Babbu and Harpal Singh have been acquitted by the trial court. Therefore, now there is no case against the present accused petitioner since he has been implicated in this matter only on the information given by the other co-accused persons who have been acquitted after trial. It was then submitted that since there is no even prima facie case against the accused petitioner, therefore, bar of section 37 of the NDPS Act is not attracted. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment delivered in the case of State of Uttaranchal v. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, reported in 2006 Cr.L.R. (S.C.) 931 and Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra and another, reported in 2005(5) SRJ 134 . It was also submitted that there is no bar in entertaining second anticipatory bail application. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed upon the judgment delivered in the case of Ravindra Saxena v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2010 Cr.L.R. (SC) 56 . 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed this second anticipatory bail application and contended that first anticipatory bail application was dismissed by this Court on 4/7/2006 and despite of standing warrant the accused petitioner hided himself and could not be apprehended. It was further submitted that accused petitioner is one of the king-pin and one of the owner of the contraband substance who was escorting in another vehicle 'scorpio' which was also recovered but the accused petitioner succeeded in fleeing away. It was next submitted that against the order of acquittal of two co-accused persons, State has preferred leave to appeal and record has also been summoned by this Court. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar and perused the judgments cited by the counsel for the petitioner. It was next submitted that against the order of acquittal of two co-accused persons, State has preferred leave to appeal and record has also been summoned by this Court. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar and perused the judgments cited by the counsel for the petitioner. While dismissing the first anticipatory bail application on 4/7/2006, after considering the rival submissions of both the parties, this Court also considered this fact that accused petitioner has been declared absconder and standing warrant has also been issued against him. It is also apparent that even after rejection of the first bail application, since last about four years accused petitioner could not be apprehended. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that against the order of acquittal of co-accused persons a leave to appeal has been filed by the State and record has been summoned in that matter. Taking in view the entire facts and circumstances, without making any observation on merits, I do not deem it proper to allow this second anticipatory bail application in the case of offence under section 8/15 of the NDPS Act. 6. Consequently, this second anticipatory bail application is hereby dismissed.Application Dismissed. *******