Order Jain, CJ(Oral). This is a second Bail Application under Section 438 Cr. P.C. on behalf of the petitioner. The first Application of the petitioner was dismissed by this Court by detailed order dated 23.05.2014 in S.B. Bail Application No. 07 of 2104 with some liberty and observation. 2. No one is present on behalf of the petitioner to argue the second Bail Application today, no one was present on behalf of the petitioner to argue the Application on 19.06.2014 and again on 20.06.2014. Since, no one is appearing on behalf of the petitioner to argue this Application for last continuous three dates, therefore, it appears that he is no more interested in prosecuting this Application. However, I have examined the contents of this Application and heard the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. 3. The main grievance of the petitioner as mentioned in the Application appears to be that while hearing the first Application, it was stated by learned Addl. Public Prosecutor that a charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Sikkim at Gangtok, with a prayer to initiate the proceedings under Section 82 and 83 Cr. P.C. against the petitioner, as he is absconding and learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has also initiated the proceedings against the petitioner under Section 82 and 83 Cr. P.C. and has also issued Non-Bailable Warrant against him. It is stated in the Application that the said statement of the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor is not correct, as no proceedings under Section 82 and 83 Cr. P.C. have been ordered to be initiated by the Chief Judicial Magistrate against the petitioner. Therefore, this second Application under Section 438 Cr. P.C. be heard on merits. 4. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submitted that in the charge-sheet itself a prayer was made by the Investigating Officer to initiate the proceedings against the petitioner under Section 82 and 83 Cr. P.C. as he is absconding and did not cooperate during investigation of the case. Therefore, he remained under the impression that the Chief Judicial Magistrate has also initiated the proceedings under Section 82 and 83 Cr. P.C. against the petitioner. He, however, submitted that there is no dispute that petitioner did not appear before the Investigating Officer as he was hiding himself and he did not cooperate with the investigating agency during investigation of the case. The Addl. P.C. against the petitioner. He, however, submitted that there is no dispute that petitioner did not appear before the Investigating Officer as he was hiding himself and he did not cooperate with the investigating agency during investigation of the case. The Addl. Public Prosecutor referred a Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kartarey and others vs. The State of U.P. reported in (1976) 1 SCC 172 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed “To be an ‘absconder’ in the eye of law, it is not necessary that a person should have run away from his home, it is sufficient if he hides himself to evade the process of law, even if the hiding place be his own home”. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that from the statement of Pankaj Behura and Manoj Behura recorded during investigation, it is clear that stolen items were handed over to the present petitioner, therefore, the custody of petitioner is required, to recover the said stolen items. He, therefore, submitted that since petitioner is absconding and a recovery of stolen items are to be made, therefore, petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of Section 438 Cr. P.C. He also raised an objection that there is no change of circumstance after dismissal of the first Application under Section 438 Cr. P.C. of the petitioner. Therefore, this second Application should not be entertained. 6. I have examined the contents and other documents enclosed with the Application and also considered the submissions of learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. The first Application of the petitioner was dismissed by detailed order dated 23.05.2014. From the record of the case, it is clear that the petitioner is absconding. From the statements of Pankaj Behura and Manoj Behura, it is also clear that the stolen items were handed over to the petitioner, therefore, investigating agency may require his custody for the purpose of recovery of stolen items related with the present case. There is no change of circumstances, after dismissal of first Bail Application of the petitioner. 7. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in this second Application and the same is accordingly dismissed.