complainant found rough papers on its opening after broke open the lock. The petitioner’s role is allegedly that he accompanied with A.2, who promised to hand over new currency notes for the old currency notes i.e., banned notes. The petitioner filed bail application earlier before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Miryalguda in Crl.M.P.No.2606 of 2016, which was dismissed by the Magistrate by order dated 22.12.2016. The only contention before this Court is that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the above crime though no material available against him. After dismissal of the application by the Magistrate, there are no changed circumstances and apart from that A.1 and A.4 to A.6 were absconding conveniently avoiding their arrest by the police in connection with the above crime and the amount involved in the crime is not yet recovered. The petitioner appears to be a person who accompanied A.2 and took away the money and shifted the money into a bag, promising to come back along with another person by leaving A.2 at the shop of the de facto complainant. Therefore, there is a prima facie material against the petitioner and that apart, the investigation is not yet completed and the other accused ie., A.1 and A.4 to A.6 are to be apprehended, incase the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of interfering with further investigation and it is difficult for the investigating agency to apprehend A.1 and A.4 to A.6 in connection with the above crime and here long period of languishing in jail by itself is not a ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail in view of the
