Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—The accused petitioners Mahendra, Lalaram and Kamal, have filed this second anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in FIR No.262/2012 registered at Police Station, Badoda Mev, District Alwar for the offence under Section 376(2)(g) IPC and Section 5(2) 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 2. The First Bail Application moved by the accused petitioners was rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 14.8.2013 and since the Hon'ble Judge Presiding the Co-ordinate Bench, is sitting at Jodhpur, the Hon'ble the Chief Justice in another matter moved by the Deputy Registrar of this Court passed orders for listing such bail applications before the Regular Bench hearing such matters. Hence this matter is being heard today on the second anticipatory bail application moved by the accused petitioners. 3. It is stated in the second bail application that the prosecutrix is more than 19 years old grownup girl and under pressure of villagers, her father Gulab Meena lodged a false FIR No. 262/2012 on 8.11.2012 for the offence under Section 376(2)(G) IPC and Section 5(2)/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The police due to ulterior motive arrested co-accused Kaishi @ Sonu @ Hansraj on 20.11.2012 and filed charge-sheet against him and investigation against the accused petitioners was kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. The case of co-accused Kaishi @ Sonu @ Hansraj committed to Additional Sessions Judge, Laxmangarh, District Alwar and prosecutrix and PW.1 and PW.2. Both the important witnesses of prosecution have not supported the case of prosecution and denied the story of rape. It is stated that the prosecutrix has been declared hostile and the police without any justified reason tried to arrest the petitioners, the accused petitioners moved bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the court below but the court below without appreciating the facts of this case rejected the bail application vide order dated 22.5.2013. The petitioners thereafter filed the first bail application before this Court and it has been stated by the counsel for the accused petitioners that due to unavoidable circumstances counsel for he petitioners could not appear before this Court and his court clerk sought adjournment but his request was not accepted and this court rejected the bail application vide order dated 14.8.2013. 4. This court passed the following order: "Heard. 4. This court passed the following order: "Heard. In this case, the charge-sheet under Section 299 Cr.P.C. has been filed in abscondance of the petitioners. Accordingly in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Lavesh vs. State (NCT) of Delhi, reported in 2012(2) SCC 730, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that when the accused is absconding and the warrant of arrest is issued against him, he would not be entitled to grant of anticipatory bail, this Court is not accept this pre-arrest bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this bail application u/Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected." 5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the accused petitioners that while deciding the bail application by the Apex Court in the case of Lavesh vs. State (supra) the Apex Court also granted interim protection to the applicants but they did not appear for interrogation. The learned counsel has argued that in these circumstances the Apex Court looking to the conduct of the applicants dismissed the bail. It has been argued that the prosecutrix and complainant did not support the case of the prosecution and declared hostile. In these circumstances, it was argued that there is no case of prosecution left against the accused petitioners. It has been further argued that the investigating agency filed charge-sheet under Section 299 of Cr.P.C. It is further argued that the accused petitioners are not at all required for any custodial interrogation purposes. The learned counsel for the accused petitioners has placed reliance on Lavesh vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 Supreme Court Cases 730, Ravindra Saxena vs. State of Rajasthan ( AIR 2010 SC 1225 ) Bharat Chaudhary and another vs. State of Bihar and another (2004(1) Western Law Cases (SC) Criminal 205). 6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the second bail application filed by the accused petitioners. It has been argued that it is an admitted fact that charge-sheet under Section 299 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the accused petitioners and arrest warrants have also been issued against them and the case reported in Lavesh vs. State (NCT) (supra) is applicable on all fours in the instant matter and this second bail application in these circumstances is not maintainable. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Since the order in the earlier bail application is based on the basis of the Apex Court judgment in Lavesh vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (supra), it would be necessary to have a look at the relevant portion of para 12 of the judgment in that case, the same reads as under: 12. From these materials and information, it is clear that the present appellant was not available for interrogation and investigation and was declared as "absconder". Normally, when the accused is "absconding" and declared as a "proclaimed offender", there is no question of granting anticipatory bail. We reiterate that when a person against whom a warrant had been issued and is absconding or concealing himself in order to avoid execution of warrant and declared as a proclaimed he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail. 8. From the materials available on the record it is clear that from the date of filing of the FIR and till date the accused petitioners are absconder and were not available for interrogation and investigation and were declared as "absconder". The Apex Court rightly held and the Co-ordinate Bench also took the view that since the accused petitioners are "absconding" and declared as a "proclaimed offender" and hence the anticipatory bail was refused. I may also reiterate that on the basis of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the above case and the order rejecting the anticipatory bail by the Coordinate Bench it is clear that warrant of arrest had been issued and the accused petitioners are absconding or concealing themselves in order to avoid execution of warrant and declared as a proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code and in their absence charge sheet under Section 299 Cr.P.C. has been filed before the trial Court. 9. 9. The Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 22.5.2013 rejecting the anticipatory bail of the accused petitioners observed as under: ^^la{ksi esa izdj.k ds rF; bl izdkj gS fd fnukad 08-11-2012 dks ifjoknh xqykc us viuh yM+dh ¼vfHk;ksD=h½ ds lkFk ,d rgjhjh fjiksVZ vkj{kh dsUnz cM+kSnk eso esa bl vk'k; dh ntZ djokh; fd fnukad 08-11-2012 dks lk;a lk<+s lkr ls vkB ctsa mldh iq=h 'kSp djus x;h Fkh rks mlds ihNs ls pkj yM+ds ,dne ls vk;s vkSj vfHk;ksD=h dks idM+k vkSj egsUnz o ds'kh us vfHk;ksD=h ls cykRdkj fd;k tc og fp[kh o fpYyk;h rks mldh HkkHkh cCyh vk;h vkSj mldks NqM+k;k vkSj tc mldk HkkbZ o firkth vk;s rks o pkjks Hkkx x;s ------- bR;kfnA mä fjiksVZ ij izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 26222012 vUrxZr /kkjk 376 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk esa ntZ vuqla/kku vkjEHk fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ vfHk;qäx.k dks eqdkeh iqfyl }kjk fxjrkjh dk vans'kk gksus ij mudh vksj ls ;g vfxze tekur vkosnu izLrqr fd;k x;kA fo}ku vf/koäk izkFkhZ vfHk;qäx.k dk rdZ gS fd izkFkhZx.k ds fo:) izdj.k >qBs] cscwfu;kn vk/kkjghu rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij ntZ djok;s gSa bl izdjk esa lg-vfHk;qä ds'kh mQZ lksuw ds fo:) iqfyl }kjk vkjksi i= izLrqr fd;k x;kA ftlesa vfHk;ksD=h us U;k;ky; esa gq;s c;kuksa esa dFku fd;k gS fd mlds lkFk fdlh Hkh izdkj dh dksbZ ?kVuk izkFkhZx.k }kjk ugha dh x;h gSA eqdkeh iqfyl }kjk izkFkhZx.k ds fo:) /kkjk 173¼8½ n.M izfØ;k lafgrk esa vuqla/kku yfEcr j[kk x;k gSA vr% esa tekur vkosnu i= Lohdkj fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;k gSA fo}ku yksd vfHk;kstd us mä rdksZ dk fojks/k djrs gq;s ;g izkFkZuk i= vLohdkj djus dh izkFkZuk U;k;ky; ls dh gSA eSaus nksuksa i{kksa ds rdksZ dk /;kuiwoZd voyksdu fd;k] lacaf/kr dsl Mk;jh dk v/;;u fd;kA i=koyh ds voyksdu ls izrhr gksrk gS fd bl izdj.k esa pkj ewyfteku }kjk feydj ukckfyx vfHk;ksD=h ds lkFk lkeqfgd cykRdkj fd;k x;k gSA orZeku izdj.k esa vfHk;qä egsUnz ds fo:) iqfyl us U;k;ky; l pkyku izLrqr djus ds fy, LFkkbZ okjaV tkjh djok j[kk gsA vr% bu lc ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq;s ,oa vuqla/kku esa vfHk;qäx.k dh vko';drk dks ns[krs gq;s esa izkFkhZ vfHk;qäx.k dk vfxze tekur vkosnu i= Lohdkj fd;k tkuk ugha ikrk gwWA** 10. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the Sessions Judge in the order dated 22.5.2013 rejecting the anticipatory bail. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the Sessions Judge in the order dated 22.5.2013 rejecting the anticipatory bail. The Sessions Judge in the order observed that standing warrant has been issued against the accused petitioners and they are proclaimed offenders and thus not entitled for anticipatory bail as their names are found in the FIR and their presence is necessary for investigation,. In my view without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case accused petitioners are not entitled to anticipatory bail at this stage. It may also be made clear that in the earlier bail application moved by the accused petitioners all the points raised in the second bail application have already been raised in the first bail application and further there is no new ground so as to again consider the second bail application, though the second bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable when the first bail application was heard and decided on merits. The other rulings cited by the learned counsel for the accused petitioners are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. 11. For the reasons mentioned above, this second anticipatory bail application filed by the accused petitioners Mahendra son of Deviram, Lalram son of Ramkhiladi and Kamal son of Deviram, being devoid of merits stands rejected. I may make it clear that the accused petitioners may now surrender before the trial court within a week and they are free to move bail application before the trial court after surrender and the Court concerned may dispose of the bail application in accordance with law.