JUDGMENT :

Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. Apprehending his arrest the present application has been moved on behalf of the applicant-Suraj Harijan seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.124 of 2021, under Section 461 IPC and Section 25 Indian TELEGRAPH ACT , Police Station-Harpur Budahat, District-Gorakhpur.

3. The prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR is that on 24.11.2021 at 7.10 AM Technician Shreyansh Yadav working in a Door Sanchar Vodafone Mobile Tower IN1231083 informed the informant that 4 batteries have been stolen from the battery bank by breaking the lock of the main gate by some unknown person. FIR was lodged on 24.11.2021 at 16.16 hours and investigation started.

4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Investigation is going on in the matter. It is further submitted that the applicant is not named in the FIR and no incriminating article has been recovered from any place under control or from possession of the present applicant. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

6. At the very outset it appears from perusal of the record that earlier in Cr. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.8413 of 2022 the applicant Suraj Harijan and co-accused Vikas Gupta had been given liberty by this Court to file regular bail application before the court concerned and with the observation that since the offence alleged against the applicant was punishable with the imprisonment for a maximum period of seven years and they had no apprehension of arrest, the anticipatory bail application was disposed of in the aforesaid terms vide order dated 06.09.2022. However, no regular bail application in the light of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI and Others 2022(10) SCC 51, Siddharth v. State of U.P. & Anr. 2022(1) SCC 676 and Aman Preet Singh v. C.B.I. through Director 2021 SCC OnLine SC 941 was moved before the trial Court as directed by this Court and anticipatory bail application was moved by the present applicant before the Sessions Court subsequently, which was not permissible under law to the applicant but however the factum of anticipatory bail application moved before and disposed of by this Court was brought to the knowledge of the Court of Additional Session Court, Court No.2, Gorakhpur which entertained and disposed of the said application.

7. There is a statutory provision that if the anticipatory bail application has been entertained by the High Court itself then after its disposal in any way the same applicant has no legal right to move anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court in the same matter. Section 438 (7) Cr.P.C as amended in the state of Uttar Pradesh lays down the legislative scheme and expressly provides that "(7) If an application under this section has been made by any person to the High Court, no application by the same person shall be entertained by the Court of Session."

8. Now in order to circumvent the express provisions of law this Court has been approached to entertain and consider the anticipatory bail application of the applicant after rejection of the same by the S