JUDGMENT : Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J. This second bail application has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 16.7.2016 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Hindaun City, Karauli. 2. Brief facts to the case are that the complainant lodged an FIR under Section 306 read with section 34 IPC at PS Hindauncity, Karauli against the petitioner. During the course of investigation, the petitioner moved an anticipatory bail application before the court below who vide order dated 9.10.2015 dismissed the bail application. 3. Against the said order, the petitioner moved the bail application before the court, but this court vide order dated 15.12.2015 dismissed the bail application with the following observations : "Learned counsel for the accused petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the bail application with liberty to the accused petitioner to surrender himself before the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge No. 1, Hindaun City, Counsel submitted that on moving bail application by the accused petitioner, same be decided as early as possible, which is not opposed by the learned PP. The bail application is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. On moving bail application by the accused petitioner, the aforesaid court shall decide the bail application of the accused petitioner as early as possible in accordance with law." 4. Thereafter, again the petitioner moved second anticipatory bail application before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Hindaun City, Karauli, who vide order dated 16.7.2016 dismissed the bail application. 5. Again the petitioner moved the present bail application before this court against the impugned order dated 16.7.2016 requesting that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case, they belong to respectable family and they are ready to furnish the bail bonds as directed by this court, they will cooperate into the investigation, hence they should be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that petitioners, instead of surrendering before the court below, have preferred the second bail application before the court below which came to be dismissed on 16.7.2016 and investigation is going on against the accused petitioners, but they are not cooperating in the investigation. It is also contended that the second bail application filed by them is not maintainable in the light of judgment of Full Bench of this court reported in 2005(1) ILR (Raj.) 629 (Ganesh Raj v. State), relevant part whereof is reproduced as under: "In the ultimate analysis, placing reliance on the ratio indicated in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar’s case (supra), we hold that second or subsequent bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. can be filed if there is a change in the fact situation or in law which requires the earlier view being interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete. This is the limited area in which an accused who has been denied bail earlier, can move a subsequent application. Second or subsequent anticipatory bail application shall not be entertained on the ground of new circumstances, further developments, different considerations, some more details, new documents or illness of the accused. Under no circumstances the second or successive anticipatory bail application shall be entertained by the Sessions Judge/Addl. Sessions Judge." 7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the findings arrived at by the court below as also Full Bench of this court in the case of Ganesh Raj (supra), I am in unison with the findings quoted herein above. Hence, I do not think it just and proper to interfere with the impugned order dated 16.7.2016 passed by the court below, and thus the second bail application having no force, is hereby dismissed. Application for bail Dismissed.