1. Common petitioner in the petitions who is proceeded either as the sole accused or one among the accused in six crimes, all of them registered at Chottanikkara Police Station for offences punishable under sections 406, 420, 120B read with section 34 IPC, has filed these applications for the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for short the Code.

2. Out of the six crimes proceeded against petitioner five of them are registered on complaints filed by private parties before the magistrate and then referred to police for investigation, and the other suo motu registered by police; and all such crimes are now under investigation. Imputation against petitioner is that she had collected substantial sum from several persons, de facto complainant in the five crimes registered on private complaints and others making false promises and inducing them to believe that she would arrange employment in a public authority, namely, Airport Authority of India. Petitioner is totally innocent and she has no role in the transactions imputed over providing of job in Airport Authority of India, is her case. She had paid a sum of Rs.70,000/- to one Santhoshkumar for obtaining a job for her son in Airport Authority of India, and when she informed the same to her friends they had approached Santhoshkumar and paid him amounts to secure jobs in the above Authority, according to petitioner. Later realising that Santhoshkumar had cheated her she filed a complaint before police and crime registered thereof is now pending investigation. Meanwhile the above crimes have been registered implicating her as the sole accused or one among the accused alleging that she had cheated several persons with false promises of assuring employment in Airport Authority. Submitting that she is prepared to cooperate with the investigation and she will abide by any condition imposed by this court she seeks the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. She submits that she is a chronic kidney patient undergoing treatment for last more than 17 years. She had previously moved applications for anticipatory bail in all the above crimes, but, it is stated, later they were withdrawn. Copy of Common Order passed on previous applications is produced with the respective petition.

3. A statement has been filed by the investigating officer, Sub Inspector of Police, Chottanikkara in one of the applications (B.A.No.2139/2013) raising contentions in common opposing the applications. Petitioner had committed similar kind of cheating of more than fifty five persons. Her application for anticipatory bail had been turned down previously by Sessions Court, and, later, she moved applications for such relief before this court, which too were dismissed as withdrawn. Some of the crimes were registered against petitioner with her son and daughter as co-accused, but, later, her son and daughter had been deleted from the array of accused and now investigation of all crimes is proceeding against petitioner as the sole accused. Investigation of crimes has revealed complicity of petitioner of cheating several persons, and her arrest and custodial interrogation is essential, submits the investigating officer.

4. Petitioner has produced with each application copy of the Common Order passed by this court in her previous applications as annexure. That Order dated 4.2.2013 reads ”Dismissed as withdrawn”. After dismissal of previous applications petitioner has filed the present applications one month later. A learned single Judge of this court has held in Saji and others v. State of Kerala and another (B.A.No.7610/2008) that repeated and successive application for anticipatory bail cannot be entertained. Similar view has been expressed by other co-ordinate benches also. So much so, the first question emerging for consideration is whether the present applications moved by petitioner after dismissal of her previous applications are entertainable