The main legal point established in the judgment is that once an accused surrenders to the jurisdiction of the Court after being granted anticipatory bail for a limited period and after submission of charge-sheet, the petition for anticipatory bail for the second time is not maintainable.

Birendra P.D. Verma, J.

1. The primal issue involved in these two cases filed under Section 438. Code of Criminal Procedure is as to whether once an accused surrenders to the jurisdiction of the Court after grant of anticipatory' bail for a limited period, or has been taken into police custody, can invoke the jurisdiction of the Court of Session or the High Court for grant of anticipatory bail for the second time?

2. For the purpose of consideration of the main issue involved in these two cases brief facts are required to be noticed. The Petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 1257 of 2010 is an accused in connection with Khagaria Rail P.S. Case No. 5 of 2008 dated 21.1.2008 registered under Sections 382, 120-B, 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code. Though the Petitioner is not named in the FIR as an accused, but during course of investigation, it transpired that he is involved in sale of stolen railway property. The allegation was denied by the Petitioner and it was claimed that he deals in kabari (scraps). Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, the learned Sessions Judge, Kahgaria, by his order dated 16.2.2008 passed in A.B. No. 36 of 2008 vide Annexure 2 to the petition, was pleased to grant him anticipatory bail till conclusion of the investigation of the case. However, on close of investigation police submitted charge-sheet against the Petitioner and accordingly cognizance has been taken in the case. When the Petitioner moved again for grant of anticipatory bail, then by the impugned order dated 14.10.2009 passed in A.B.P. No. 228 of 2009 learned Sessions Judge, Khagaria by placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1996 SC 1042: (1996) 1 SCC 667, Salauddin Abdul Samad Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, and the judgment reported in (2004) 7 SCC 558, Nirmaljeet Kaur v. State of M.P. and Anr., has rejected the same as not maintainable. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the Petitioner has moved before this Court for grant of anticipatory bail.

3. The Petitioners in Cr. Misc. No. 2875 of 2010 are accused in connection with Dumraon (Naya Bhojpur) P.S. Case No. 66/2009 dated 21.4.2009 registered under Sections 323, 341, 504, 468/34 of the Indian Penal Code. All the Petitioners in the aforesaid case are named in the FIR as accused vide Annexure-1. However, by an order dated 10.6.2009 passed in A.B.P. No. 213 of 2009/30/2009 learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Buxar, was pleased to grant them anticipatory bail till submission of charge-sheet only on the ground that the entire occurrence was result of family feud between both sides. On close of investigation charge-sheet vide Annexure-4 was submitted on 13.7.2009 against all the Petitioners. In view of submission of charge-sheet and in view of the fact that earlier order dated 10.6.2009 granting anticipatory bail to the Petitioners was for a limited period till submission of charge- sheet in the case, the Petitioners again moved before the learned Sessions Judge, Buxar for grant of anticipatory bail, which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 10.11.2009 passed in A.B.P. No. 540 of 2009 on the ground that Petitioners are not entitled to move for anticipatory bail second time and in terms of previous order they are required to appear in the Court below for seeking regular bail.

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that learned Sessions Judge has erred in law by holding that petition filed by the Petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail for the second time was not maintainable, as the previous orders granting them anticipatory bail were for a limited period till submission of the charge-sheet. Strong reliance was placed on paragraph-10 of a judgment of learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Anirudh Pd. @ Sadhu Yadav v. State of Bihar, reported in 2006 (2) PLJR 676, and it was submitted that even if previous anticipatory bail order was for a limited period till submission of the charge-sheet, then after submission o