ORDER :

1. Heard the parties.

2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Petarwar P.S. Case No. 92 of 2020 (G.R. No. 677 of 2020) for the offence registered under Sections 147/ 149/ 337/ 352/ 353/ 504/ 188/ 269 of the IPC, pending in the Court of Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat.

3. Earlier the petitioner had moved this Court for grant of anticipatory bail in A.B.A. No. 4043 of 2020, which has been rejected vide order passed on 17.09.2020.

4. The sole contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that after order dated 17.09.2020, similarly situated co-accused has been granted anticipatory bail in connection with same P.S. Case by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.09.2020, passed in A.B.A. No. 4440 of 2020 and as such, petitioner deserves to be given the benefit of anticipatory bail.

5. Learned APP vehemently opposes the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that earlier the prayer of the petitioner for enlarging him on anticipatory bail was rejected by this Court and as such, he ought to have moved for regular bail by surrendering himself before the Court below as the second Anticipatory Bail Application after rejection of earlier application seeking anticipatory bail in connection with the same P.S. Case is not maintainable in the eyes of law.

6. After hearing the parties and on perusal of the records, it appears that the main issue to be decided is as to whether once this Court had dismissed the anticipatory bail application, can the accused file second application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

7. The similar issue fell for consideration before the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in a case reported in (1988) 18 Reports 254 (DB) (Calcutta) wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that:

"As the accusation in a case remains the same and as an accused is given right to apply for anticipatory bail when he apprehends arrest on an accusation, he cannot apply more than once in respect of same accusation. Thus, when an accused was refused anticipatory bail by Division Bench of High Court he was not entitled to file another application for same relief before the High Court."

8. The Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court also in a case reported in (1991) 2 APLJ 366, held that a second application for grant of anticipatory bail either before the Court of Sessions or before the High Court is not maintainable under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

9. Further, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court dealing with the similar issue, in case of Ram Gopal Vs. the State Rajasthan (1983 RLW 270) has clearly observed that:

"16........ (i) After rejection of bail application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. by the High Court second anticipatory bail application is not maintainable.

(ii) An order refusing an application for bail under Section 439, Cr.P.C. does not necessarily preclude another on a latter occasion giving more materials, further developments and different considerations. "

10. Further in case of Suresh Chand and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2001 (4) WLC 684, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has observed that, after rejection of bail application made by the accused petitioners before the High Court under Section 438, Cr.P.C, second application for the same relief was not maintainable even before the High Court and the Sessions Judge had absolutely no jurisdiction to entertain the second anticipatory bail application.

11. Similar issue fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Jagmohan Bahl & Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr., reported in (2014) 16 SCC 501 wherein the Hon'ble Court in para-13, 15 and 16 has held as under:

"13. On a perusal of the aforesaid authorities, it is clear to us that the learned Judge, who has declined to entertain the prayer for grant of bail, if available, should hear the second bail application or the successive bail applications. It is in consonance with the principle of judicial decorum, discipline and propriety. Needless to say, unle