Judgment : R. Subbiah, J, 1. This is the second anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner, for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC, in Crime No.722 of 2011 on the file of G-I, Vepery Police Station, Chennai. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that a complaint was lodged by one Mohammed Saudali, Partner of Shifa Enterprises stating that the petitioner/accused herein was employed as Accountant-cum-Cashier in the said firm and he was solely in-charge-of cash transaction. On 05.05.2011, the petitioner/accused informed the de-facto complainant that he had just received the death message of his close relative at Arakkonam and sought urgent leave to attend the funeral function. Believing his words, the de-facto complainant allowed him to go and the petitioner took the de-facto complainant's TVS Scooty, bearing Registration No.TN-04AD-8979 and left the Company. Thereafter, the petitioner did not report for duty. Hence, the de-facto complainant's son Jawed Ahmed went to the petitioner's residential address at Arakkonam and found his house locked. Thereafter, when the de-facto complainant verified the bank account, he found that more than Rs.10,00,000/-was missing from the transaction. Hence, a complaint was lodged before the Deputy Commissioner, who directed the respondent police to register a case and investigate. Based on the said direction, a case in Crime No.722 of 2011 was registered for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC on 30.06.2011 at 19.00 hours. 3. Hence, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent Police, the petitioner herein earlier filed petition in Crl.O.P.No.6332 of 2013, seeking anticipatory bail. But, the said anticipatory bail petition is dismissed by this Court on 15.04.2013. Now, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail for the second time. 4. When the matter came up for hearing on 27.06.2013, based on the representation made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a direction was issued to the Registry to transmit the entire case bundle to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre and to fix a date within a period of one week and also, if no settlement is arrived at, the matter shall be sent to the Court thereafter. Since no settlement was arrived at, the entire case bundle was returned to this Court. 5. After the dismissal of the earlier anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioner, there is no change of circumstances. Since no settlement was arrived at, the entire case bundle was returned to this Court. 5. After the dismissal of the earlier anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioner, there is no change of circumstances. Thus, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent-Police opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that as there is no change in circumstances, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot serve as a ground for maintaining the second anticipatory bail petition and hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.