ORDER P.N.S. Chouhan, J. 1. First application under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure having been dismissed by this Court, vide order, dated 8-6-92, in M. Cr.C. No. 1760/92, this second petition under the same provision was presented on 30-9-92 on alleged discovery of new facts and grounds. 2. The question arises whether a second application for anticipatory bail is maintainable ? Applicant's learned counsel's submission is that there appears to be no direct authority on this point. He however referred to the following observations occurring in Babu Singh and others v. The State of U.P. AIR 1978 SC 527 Right at the beginning we must mention that, at an earlier stage, their application for bail was rejected by the Court on September 7, 1977. But an order refusing an application for bail does not necessarily preclude another, on a latter occasion, giving more materials, further developments and different consideration. While we surely must set store by this circumstance, we cannot accede to the faint plea that we are barred from second consideration at a later stage. An interim direction is not a conclusive adjudication, and updated reconsideration is not overturning an earlier negation. The above observations relate to a pending appeal before the Supreme Court. As such the ratio will not apply to an application u/s. 438 Cr P. C. where the person seeks bail prior to his arrest in cognizable case. 3. On rejection of an application under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by this Court, the options open to the applicant are either to surrender before the concerned authority or to file a Special Leave petition before the Supreme Court. Where he adopts neither of these courses, it will be reasonable to infer that in utter disregard of the process of law he has deliberately absconded In such circumstances, his second application for anticipatory bail must be held barred at the threshold and he should be directed to surrender to the concerned authority forthwith 4. Then, the field is really not as virgin as was sought to be projected is manifest from the following extract from in Malla Rama rao and others v. The State AIR 1978 SC 527 . Then, the field is really not as virgin as was sought to be projected is manifest from the following extract from in Malla Rama rao and others v. The State AIR 1978 SC 527 . If the accused put up a case that there are changed circumstances by filing a second application it indicates that they are aware of the fact that investigation is going on and they are not available to the Police for arrest or absconding and that they are getting information through some one else. Such persons are not entitled to take advantage of the changed circumstances by filing a second application for anticipatory bail which prima facie is barred under the provision of S 438 either before the Court of Sessions or before the High Court, in view of the conduct exhibited by them. Therefore, I am firmly of the view that a second application for the grant of anticipatory bail either before the Court of Session or before the High Court is not maintainable u/s. 438. Cr. P. C. and the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor must be upheld. 5. Thus, this second petition under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner is held not maintainable and, therefore, rejected.