GOPINATH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two questions arising for consideration in this application filed under S. 438 of the Cr. P.C. are (1) Whether the rejection of an application under S. 438 by the Sessions Judge is a bar to a second application being filed before the High Court, and (2) If there is no such bar whether this is a fit case for anticipatory bail.

(2.) One Sahadevan wanted his son to be admitted in the Dental College, Manipal. He approached the petitioner who offered to secure admission if Rs. 14,000/- is paid. The amount was paid. Son of Sahadevan got admission. But Sahadevan moved the police alleging that petitioner cheated him and he secured admission for his son through some other source. Petitioner apprehends that he may be arrested on an accusation of cheating, The application was not opposed on the ground that the apprehension is not correct. That means the petitioner is likely to be arrested on the above accusation.

(3.) An application filed by the petitioner under S. 438 was rejected by the Sessions Judge. That order is contended to be a bar in moving this Court again for the same relief. Amiya Kumar v. State of West Bengal, 1979 Cri LJ 288 (Cal) was relied on in support of the argument. In that decision it was held :