SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is the second application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 63/2006 registered at Police Station - Sahaspur Lohara, district - Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh) for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read will Section 34 of the IPC. ( 2 ) THE earlier bail application was heard and allowed by this Court by a common older dated 16. 6. 2006 passed in m. Cr. C. No. 1295/2006 (Abdul Kadar khairani and two others vs. State of chhattisgarh) and M. Cr. C. No. 1323/2006 (Smt Nishant Meman vs. State of chhattisgarh ). By the said order, it was directed that in the event of arrest of these applicants, they shall be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs. 10. 000/- with one surety each in like amount to the satisfaction of the officer arresting them. It was also directed that the said order shall remain in force for a period of 45 days from the said date, during which, the applicants may apply for regular bail before the concerned Court. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicants submits that after the aforesaid protective umbrella opened in favour of the applicants, the applicants applied before the Chief Judicial Magistrate for grant of regular bail under Section 437 cr. P. C. , but their application was dismissed on merits vide order dated 27/g/ 2006 (Annexure A-2 ). Thereafter, hey filed another application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Sessions Court, which was also dismissed vide order dated 30. 6. 2006 (Annexure A-3 ). After rejection of the aforesaid application by the Sessions court, the applicants filed an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal procedure before the High Court vide m. Cr. C. No. 2059/2006. This miscellaneous application came up for hearing on 10/8/2006, but the same was withdrawn with a liberty to file afresh after all the applicants surrender themselves to custody in accordance with law (Annexure a-4 ). He further submits that since the period of protective umbrella had expired on the date of hearing before tie High court i. e. on 10. 8. He further submits that since the period of protective umbrella had expired on the date of hearing before tie High court i. e. on 10. 8. 2006, the said application was withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty, but instead of surrendering before the appropriate Court, the applicants have again moved before this Court under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal procedure. His submission is that their , apprehension still remains; therefore, a fresh order under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may be passed after entertaining this second bail application in changed circumstances. ( 4 ) IN the opinion of this Court, this second bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal procedure cannot be entertained in the prevailing facts and circumstances of this case, as the earlier bail application of the applicants was allowed and the applicants, after travelling to the High Court, ultimately, withdrew their application filed under Section 439 of the Code of criminal Procedure and availed full of opportunity for grant of regular bail. The concept of entertaining the subsequent bail application in the changed circumstance cannot be applied when the earlier bail application was allowed. In, fact, if this subsequent bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is entertained, it would go against the spirit of law laid down by the apex Court in the matter of Adri Dharan das v. State of W. B. (2005) 4 SCC 303, wherein referring to the decision rendered in the matter of salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh v. State of maharashtra (1996) 1 SCC 667 and KL. Verma v. State (1998) 9 SCC 348. , the supreme Court has held as follows: "as observed in Salauddin case. (1996) 1 SCO 667, the protection in terms of Section 438 Cr. P. C. is for a limited duration during which the regular court has to be movedfor bail Obviously, such bail is bail in terms of Section 439 Cr. P. C. , mandating the applicant to be in custody. Otherwise, the distinction between orders under Sections 438 and 439 cr. P. C. shall be rendered meaningless and redundant. P. C. is for a limited duration during which the regular court has to be movedfor bail Obviously, such bail is bail in terms of Section 439 Cr. P. C. , mandating the applicant to be in custody. Otherwise, the distinction between orders under Sections 438 and 439 cr. P. C. shall be rendered meaningless and redundant. In K. L vermacase, (1998) 9 SCC 348 it was observed: "anticipatory bail may be granted for a duration which may extend to the date on which the bail application is disposed of or even a few days thereafter to enable the accused persons to move the higher court, if they so desire. " The expression "or even a few days there-after relates to grey areas. If the protective umbrella of section 438 Cr. P. C. is extended beyond what was laid down in salauddin case the result would be clear bypassing of what is mandated in Section 439 Cr. P. C. regarding custody. In other words, till the applicant avails remedies up to higher courts, the requirements of section 439 become dead letter. No part of a statute can be rendered redundant in that manner. " ( 5 ) ENTERTAINING this second bail application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after being unsuccessful in securing bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure during the entire period of protective umbrella granted in earlier bail application, shall amount to take steps for opening another protective umbrella, in this manner, to the period ad in finitum rendering bypassing of what is mandated in section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding custody. ( 6 ) THIS second bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be entertained and the same is dismissed at the motion stage itself. Application dismissed. --- *** --- .