MAHESHWARI KUMARI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.

(2.) THIS is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal procedure praying for grant of anticipatory bail. It is not a virgin case under the said section but in respect of the complaint which was transformed in the First Information Report by initiating a criminal proceeding, the petitioner-accused therein moved the Court of learned sessions Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Port Blair an application seeking relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which stood rejected on 3rd January, 2006 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 55 of 2005 and subsequently he moved another application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure registered as Criminal Misc. Case no. 103 of 2008 before the said Court which also stood rejected on the ground of maintainability as no second application was maintainable after rejection of the first one.

(3.) AFTER that, this is the third attempt by the petitioner-accused though the learned Advocate submitted that it is the first attempt in the High Court to move the matter under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In support of maintainability of this application, a Full Bench judgment of the Rajasthan High Court has been relied upon which was passed in the case of Ganesh Raj v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. , reported in 2005 Cri. LJ 2086. Mr. Mandal, learned Advocate appearing for the State has submitted that it is a settled legal position that no second application seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is maintainable once the first application is rejected. It is further contended that the Calcutta High Court by Full Bench decision held accordingly in the case of Maya Rani Guin and etc. v. State of West Bengal, reported in cri. LJ 2003 page 1.