Court denies second anticipatory bail application due to lack of significant changes in circumstances. Withdrawal of first application considered.

The court rejected the second anticipatory bail application, emphasizing the lack of substantial changes in circumstances in favor of the applicant. The court considered the earlier withdrawal of the first application, noting it occurred after thorough evaluation of the applicant's role and evidence against him. The claimed changes in circumstances, including developments related to a co-accused and a letter from GST Authorities, were deemed insufficient to support the present application.

---

---

Issues:
1. Consideration of second anticipatory bail application after unconditional withdrawal of the first application.
2. Claimed changes in circumstances by the applicant.
3. Evaluation of the alleged changes in circumstances.
4. Relevance of the letter from GST Authorities.
5. Decision on the second anticipatory bail application.

Analysis:

1. The applicant filed a second anticipatory bail application after unconditionally withdrawing the first application. The court noted the earlier withdrawal and the subsequent filing without surrendering before the police.

2. The applicant claimed changes in circumstances, citing the rejection and subsequent interim protection granted to a co-accused in a related matter. The applicant also mentioned a reply from APMC regarding the case's goods not reflecting in their records.

3. The court evaluated the claimed changes and found them insufficient to favor the present applicant. Separate allegations against the applicant in the FIR were considered, and the court emphasized that the earlier withdrawal occurred after a full argument and consideration of the applicant's role and the evidence against him.

4. Regarding the letter dated 13/08/2021 from GST Authorities, the court clarified that it was issued to the co-accused and did not directly involve the present applicant. The court highlighted that the content of the letter pertained to the co-accused's activities, such as claiming Input Tax Credit, and not the applicant.

5. Ultimately, the court concluded that there were no substantial changes in circumstances in favor of the present applicant. Given the previous withdrawal of the first application after full consideration, the court rejected the second anticipatory bail application, emphasizing that the earlier withdrawal was made after a responsible statement by the applicant's counsel following a thorough examination of the material against the applicant.

---