Cuttack. March 29: Orissa High Court has ruled that successive bail applications without change in circumstances by an accused are not permissible as they are as good as seeking review of earlier rejection.

The court held this yesterday while rejecting for the third time the bail petition moved by Deepak Gupta, a key accused in the multi-crore Uliburu mining scam.

The single-judge bench of Justice S.K. Sahoo said: "The change in circumstances must be substantial one which has a direct impact on the earlier decision and not merely cosmetic changes which are of little or no consequence."

Gupta has been in jail custody since September 5, 2013. The high court had rejected his first bail petition on January 29, 2014 and second bail petition on November 14, 2014.

"There must be 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 the application for bail of an accused that has been rejected earlier can be reconsidered," Justice S.K. Sahoo has ruled.

"The contentions raised regarding ailment of the parents of the petitioner and that the petitioner is father of a five-year-old girl are not sufficient in my humble opinion to grant him bail in economic offences of this nature in view of larger interest of public and state," Justice Sahoo ruled.

In his judgment, Justice Sahoo further noted: "The crime was committed continuously for years together in a cool, calculated and organised manner causing loss of thousand of crores to the government exchequer. There are prima facie materials showing involvement of the petitioner in the deep-rooted conspiracy with other co-accused persons, including public servants. A strong prima facie case is available against the petitioner to show that he, in connivance with the mining, forest, revenue officials and mining lease holders by creating fake documents illegally and unauthorisedly, excavated iron ore which caused pecuniary advantage to him, his family members and others and there was equivalent loss to the government exchequer to the tune of more than Rs 1,500 crores. The involvement of the petitioner in the deep rooted conspiracy in the economic offences involving huge loss to government exchequer is prima facie apparent."

Justice Sahoo, however, directed the trial court not only to take immediate and effective steps for framing of charges but also to take all possible steps to proceed with the trial on day-to-day basis. "If the trial is not concluded within a period of one year from today for reasons not attributable to the petitioner, the petitioner will be at liberty to apply for bail afresh before the trial court," Justice Sahoo noted.