Judgment : The petitioner has filed the petition for anticipatory bail for the third time for the alleged offences under Sections 120-B, 409, 466, 468, 471, 477(A) IPC in Cr.No.173 of 2012. The first petition in Crl.OP.No. 5973 of 2012 was dismissed as withdrawn. The second petition Crl.OP. No 12777 of 2012 was dismissed on 25.6.2012. 2. The case of the prosecution is that a complaint was made by the defacto-complainant herein, that the petitioner alongwith A1 was responsible for committing misapprpopriation of funds of the local body to the tune of Rs.3,64,74,290/- and thus caused loss to the local body. The above fact was brought to light by the local fund audit. They have issued No Objection Certificate to various properties in reserved sites and given permission for constructing houses by creating forged documents, house tax and water tax receipts and thus caused the loss to the local body. 3. The present application has been filed stating that there are following change of circumstances; 1.That A1, Panchayat President had been enlarged on bail by this Hon'ble Court; 2.The overt act alleged in the FIR is that this petitioner is supportive of the action of the A1 and as such when the main accused himself had been released on bail, this petitioner who is alleged to have abetted the offences may also be enlarged on bail 3. Entire case is based on documentary evidence and the investigating officers seem to have recovered all the documents available with various authorities, 4. Even the surcharge notice for recovery of the alleged money was issued only to the A1 and as such no impediment would be caused to the process of investigation by enlarging the petitioner on bail. 4. Mr.N. Chandrasekaran, learned counsel, who is appearing for Mr.M. Purushothaman, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is only a Secretary of the Panchayat and he has not misappropriated or fraudulently received any money. The learned counsel pointed out that A.1 President of the Panchayat was already arrested and he has also been released on bail. 5. He would further point out that surcharge notice was also issued only to A.1 and the present petitioner is no way connected. 6. The learned counsel pointed out that A.1 President of the Panchayat was already arrested and he has also been released on bail. 5. He would further point out that surcharge notice was also issued only to A.1 and the present petitioner is no way connected. 6. On the contrary, Mr.Shankar, the learned counsel for the intervenor submits that the petitioner along with the former President of Panchayat had issued No objection certificate for selling reserved house sites and they have also given permission for construction in total violation of planning rules. Only on the local auditing the fraud was found out and both the petiitoner as well as A.1 have illegally gained crores of rupees and they have also caused huge loss to the panchayat to the tune of Rs.4 crores. 7. The learned Counsel further submitted that this court by order dated 25.6.12 dismissed the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner and there is no change of circumstances. 8. The respondents filed an objection stating that the petitioners as well as A.1 have wrongly issued No objection certificate to the reserved house sites violating the rules and a sum of Rs.3,64,74,290/- has been totally misappropriated.. 9. Mr.C. Iyyapparaj, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submits that the petitioner is an influential person and will tamper with the records and investigation is at the crucial stage. 10. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 11. As stated earlier, by an order dated 25.6.2012, this court denied the request of the petitioner. Considering the nature of the complaint this court has denied the bail as the petitioner along with A.1 had caused a loss to the local body for a sum of Rs.3,64,74,290/-. 12. Filing of second application is not a bar even though the earlier application was dismissed. The change of circumstances as per the petitioner is that A.1 who was already arrested had been enlarged on bail. The present petitioner, who has been arrayed as A.2,. is only Secretary and the surcharge notice was issued only to A.1 and not to this petitioner. 13. By an audit report dated nil it is found that the then President and the petitioner, who was the Secretary of the Panchayat have issued No objection certificate for the sale of reserved sites which was vested with the panchayat for public purposes. 14. 13. By an audit report dated nil it is found that the then President and the petitioner, who was the Secretary of the Panchayat have issued No objection certificate for the sale of reserved sites which was vested with the panchayat for public purposes. 14. Subsequent investigation revealed that both accused have caused loss to the localbody. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner poroduced the surcharge notice issued to A.1. 15. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel, gravity of the offence alone is not the criteria for denying the pre-arrest bail. 16. When there is change of circumstance, this court can always consider the bail and the only factus is whether there is possibility for the petitioner to tamper with the witness and flee from justice. 17. Entire investigation is based on records and the surcharge notice is also issued only to A.1. Therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail. 18. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of copy of this order before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Udumalpet on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, or to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest and on condition that the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m for a period of four weeks. Consequently, connected MP is closed.