Heard Mr. H. Sarkar, learned Addl Public Prosecutor, who moved this petition filed under section 439 3(2) read with 482 Cr PC seeking cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, West Tripura, Agartala on 20.12.2000 in Criminal Misc Case No. 381 (4X2000 directing the accused Samuel Ruhul Askar @ Kutti Mia to be released on bail in the event of arrest in connection with West Agartala PS Case No. l70/2K under section 148/149/302 IPC read with section 3/5 of Explosive Substances Act and under section 27 of Arms Act. 2. None appeared for the respondent despite notice received by the father of the respondent with whom the respondent has ordinarily been residing. 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor assailed the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 20.12.2000 granting anticipatory bail on the following grounds: (a) That the accused was directly involve in the commission of murder and he is an FIR named accused. (b) That since after the incident the accused absconded himself and despite repeated raids he could not be apprehended. (c) The accused moved an anticipatory bail application under section 438 Cr PC before this Court at Principal Seat in Bail Application No. 1874 of 2000, and vide order dated 29.11.2000 his Lordship Hon'ble Justice D. Biswas, rejected the said anticipatory bail petition. (d) The medical illness certificate as produced by the accused before the learned Court below, was the result after thought and managed one as it was not produced before the Hon'ble High Court in earlier petition. (e) That the case diary transpires direct involvement of the accused in the commission of murder. 4. On consideration of the case diary as produced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, it reveals that the accused is an FIR named assailant identified by the informant and his direct involvement in the commission of murder has also been revealed from the 161 statements of as may as 4 eye witnesses so far recorded during investigation promptly on 28.8.2000,29.8.2000 and 30.8.2000. All those materials were very much available before the learned Additional Sessions Judge at the time of consideration of the anticipatory bail. Despite the anticipatory bail was granted and perhaps having not applied judicious approach to the available materials in the case diary which is highly deplorable. All those materials were very much available before the learned Additional Sessions Judge at the time of consideration of the anticipatory bail. Despite the anticipatory bail was granted and perhaps having not applied judicious approach to the available materials in the case diary which is highly deplorable. The fact that the petitioner once moved anticipatory bail petition before this Hon'ble Court in Principal Seat at Guwahati has been brought to the notice of the learned Additional Sessions Judge but he cared little in granting the anticipatory bail petition. In the impugned order sheet itself it reflects the fact of the anticipatory bail petition having been rejected by this Court at Principal Seat was brought to the notice of the learned Additional Session Judge, but unfortunately the learned Additional Sessions Judge, without paying any attention allowed the anticipatory bail petition. The action of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in passing the impugned order granting anticipatory bail is highly depreciable deserves to be disapproved. The power of granting anticipatory bail is a co-ordinate power vested both in the High Court as well as the Court of Sessions under section 438 Cr PC. But, once such petition being moved by a particular accused is rejected by the High Court the same ought not to have been entertained by the Sessions Judge/ Additional Sessions Judge being a subordinate Court to the High Court to uphold the judicial propriety and to maintain the judicial discipline. Once a matter gets refusal from a superior Court the subordinate Court should not have entertained the same at all at the instance of the same party. But, unfortunately reverse happened in the instant case. It is also made clear that once an anticipatory bail petition stands rejected by a particular Presiding Judge of Sessions Court though successive petition is entertain able under law the subsequent one must be attended by the same Presiding Judge if available at station, that should be strictly followed to maintain the judicial propriety and discipline. 5. It is also made clear that once an anticipatory bail petition stands rejected by a particular Presiding Judge of Sessions Court though successive petition is entertain able under law the subsequent one must be attended by the same Presiding Judge if available at station, that should be strictly followed to maintain the judicial propriety and discipline. 5. Revert back to the facts in hand as discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 20.12.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge granting anticipatory bail to the respondent Samuel Ruhul Askar @ Kutti Mia in Criminal Misc Case No. 3 81/2000 in connection with West Agartala PS Case No. 170/2000 is contrary to the provision of law and, as such, is hereby cancelled. Let a copy of this order sheet be communicated to all the Sessions Judges, Additional Sessions Judges of the State for strict compliance.