There is no bar to filing a second application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC, and the court has the discretion to grant bail based on changed circumstances.

( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order of learned Addl. Sessions Judge granting anticipatory bail to respondent Smt. Kuldeep Kaur on 25. 2. 92 who was charged for the offences under Sections 304-B/498-A/34 Indian Penal Code.

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has argued that the first anticipatory bail application was dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge on 5. 12. 91. By that order regular bail application of other accused was dismissed and present respondent s anticipatory bail was also dismissed. Therefore, the respondent filed another application before the Sessions Court on 19. 2. 92, through another lawyer another anticipatory bail application was moved before the Sessions Judge on 21. 2. 92. On being pointed out by the learned Sessions Judge that why two applications were moved, application dated 21. 2. 92 was withdrawn and on the application dated 21. 2. 92 anticipatory bail was granted to the respondent on 25. 2. 92.

( 3 ) IN the support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there is a difference in the language of Sections 438 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code ). Learned counsel has urged that as far as Sec. 439 of the Code is concerned there cannot be any limit which can be read into the language of Sec. 439 of the Code for the accused person for moving applications for obtaining bail and the court. may grant bail in view of the changed circumstances or subsequent happenings which may be material on the basis of which the court could be persuaded that it is in the interest of justice that the person may be granted bail. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that no such interpretation could be given to the language of Sec. 438 of the Code. In support of his arguments he has cited EKKARI GHOSH @ JITENDRA vs. STATE IV (1994) CCR 2655, Kalidas Mitra Vs. The State 1989 (3) Crimes 652, MALLA RAMA RAO and ANOTHER vs. STATE I (1992) CCR 745 and 1993 (2) ccc 149.

( 4 ) THE second leg of the contention of learned counsel forthe petitioner for the cancellation of bail of the respondent is that there was no material before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge to have come to a conclusion after he had dismissed the application on 5. 12. 91 as no subsequent change in the circumstances took place so as to warrant grant of anticipatory bail to the respondent.

( 5 ) 0n the other hand, Mr. R. N. Mittal learned counsel for the respondent has argued that while the court has been given concurrent jurisdiction for granting anticipatory bai under Sec. 438 of the Code, in a citizen has been given a choice to approach the court of Session or High Court but there is no limitation which has been provided in the Code so as to come to a conclusion that more than one application for anticipatory bail under the provisions of Sec. 438 of the code is not maintainable. In support of his contention Mr. Mittal has cited 1991 (3) Crimes 796, Nahar Singh v. The State of Rajasthan 1983 (2) Crimes 583 and Suraj Bhan etc. v. State 1980 RLR 493.

( 6 ) I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties.

( 7 ) IT is pertinent to quote Sec. 438 (1) of the Code which is as follows :-

" When any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section; and that Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail. "

( 8 ) THE legislative intention is manifest from the plain language of said Section. The basic of some information, which expression results from reason to believe , is apprehending arrest on account of certain accusations he may invoke the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court or of the High Court. Question is whether Session Court or the High Court w