Judgment : RAGHUNATH RAY, J. (1) All these petitioners sought for an order of anticipatory bail before the Id. Sessions Judge 24 Pgs. (North) Barasat and all of them have been favoured with an order of anticipatory bail on 4-5-2009 in connection with Bagda PS Case No. 127 of 2009. dated 26-3-2009 under Section 363/366/372/120-B, IPC in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1429 of 2009. (2) On receipt of communication of grant of anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioners the Id. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bongaon asked the petitioners to furnish bail bond of Rs. 2000/- each with one surety vide his order dated 11 -5-2009 in terms of Id.Sessions Judges order dated 4-3-2009. The petitioners, however, did not avail of the aforementioned bail order passed in their favour by furnishing appropriate sureties. They preferred another anticipatory bail application under Section 438, Cr. P.C. afresh for the second time before this Court. It has been averred in their petition that they had been to the Court of the Id. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bongaon after the expiry of the period of two (2) weeks, but such surrender was not accepted by the Id. Additional Chie Judicial Magistrate, Bongaon. (3) In view of such averments made in their petition the relevant case record pertaining to G.R. No. 474 of 2009 was called for. On perusal of relevant order sheets, it appears that the accused petitioners did not file any petition intending to surrender before the Court of Id. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bongaon, on the strength of anticipatory bail order dated 4-5-2009 passed by Id. Sessions Judge, 24 Pgs (North), Barasat. There is also nothing on record to indicate that pursuant to bail order passed by Id. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bongaon, they furnished bail bonds of Rs. 2000/- each with one surety. It is also significant to note that the petitioners did not move before the Id. Sessions Judge, Barasat for extension of validity period of anticipatory bail order passed in their favour by the Id. Sessions Judge, Barasat. (4) Against such factual scenario, now the question crops whether a second application under Section 438, Cr. P.C. is maintainable even after the grant of anticipatory bail in petitioners favour by the Id. Sessions Judge, Barasat and without complying with the conditions as laid down in the said order of anticipatory bail. Sessions Judge, Barasat. (4) Against such factual scenario, now the question crops whether a second application under Section 438, Cr. P.C. is maintainable even after the grant of anticipatory bail in petitioners favour by the Id. Sessions Judge, Barasat and without complying with the conditions as laid down in the said order of anticipatory bail. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners by their Id. counsel that since, both the Courts -Court of Sessions and this Court - have concurrent powers in the matter, there is no bar in moving second application for anticipatory bail before this High Court, although such anticipatory bail has already been granted by the Id. Sessions Judge. According to him, in view of the petitioners failure to surrender before the Id. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bongaon within the stipulated period of two (2) weeks, the petitioners are legally entitled to prefer a second application praying for grant of anticipatory bail by this Court. Such submission is, however, disputed by the Id. counsel for the State. (5) We have very carefully taken into consideration the relevant provisions as enshrined in sub-section (1) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the light of arguments as advanced from the side of the petitioners. (6) Admittedly- their prayer for anticipatory bail under Section 438, Cr. P.C was allowed by the Id. Sessions Judge. Barasat and accordingly, it was ordered that in the event of their arrest in connection with above noted case they may find bail bond of Rs. 2000/-each with one surety of like amount each on condition to make themselves available before the I.O. as and when required. They were also directed to comply with the provision as laid down under Section 438(2), Cr. P.C. with a further observation that the said order shall remain in force for two (2) weeks from the date of such order. The petitioners did not avail of such anticipatory bail order by furnishing bail bond as per direction of the Id. Sessions Judge, Barasat within the stipulated period of time. (7) That apart, instead of making any prayer before the Id. Sessions Judge for allowing them further time to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the Id. Court below they have come up again on the aforesaid situation by way of taking out this application with a prayer for grant of anticipatory bail afresh. (7) That apart, instead of making any prayer before the Id. Sessions Judge for allowing them further time to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the Id. Court below they have come up again on the aforesaid situation by way of taking out this application with a prayer for grant of anticipatory bail afresh. It should be borne in mind that the moment a person files an application under Section 438, Cr. P,C. and the same has been disposed of either in his favour or against him indicates that he is well aware of the conditions as are incorporated in such order. In case of a favourable order admitting petitioners on anticipatory bail on imposition of suitable conditions, as a dutiful citizen it is obiigatory on the part of the petitioners to comply with those conditions and to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the Id. Magistrate. The plea of miscommunication taken by the petitioners in the instant application filed for the second time do not appear to be a cogent and sufficient ground for filing another application for anticipatory bail for the second time before this Court. (8) In this context we would like to refer to a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in 2003 Criminal Law Journal 1 (Mayarani Gum etc. v. State of West Bengal. It has been observed inter alia in para 39 of the said judgment as under:-"If in exercise of its power under Section 438 of Cr. P.C., the High Court or the Court of Session fixes duration as a condition of bail, the accused is required to seek regular bail under Section 437 of the Code and/or under Section 439 of the Code within the said duration. If regular bail is refused, the further remedy available to the aggrieved accused is for moving the higher forum for regular bail." (9) It is also quite evident from the order of the Id. Sessions Judge, that having considered materials in the L.C.R. including statement under Section 164, Cr: P.C. he has granted anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioners. He Has thus disposed of CMC No. 1429 of 2009 on merit. Such being the position, we are of the opinion, that although this Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of sessions under Section 43S, Cr. He Has thus disposed of CMC No. 1429 of 2009 on merit. Such being the position, we are of the opinion, that although this Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of sessions under Section 43S, Cr. P.C. it would not be permissible for this Court to entertain another anticipatory bail petition seeking same relief for the second time before this Court and to dispose of the same on merit on the basis of same materials which have already been taken into consideration by the Id. Sessions Judge prior to the grant of anticipatory bail by him in favour of these petitioners. (10) Therefore, we are of the opinion that whenever the petitioners prayer for anticipatory bait has already been allowed by the Id. Sessions Judge on imposition of suitable conditions, it is incumbent upon the petitioners to comply with those directions passed by the Id. Sessions Judge and also to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the Id. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bongaon, for obtaining regular bail accordingly. (11) In almost identical situation the Full Bench of this High Court as already referred to earlier opined in para 28 of Maya Rani Guins case that "It is not possible to hold that an accused person who has been granted an order (anticipatory bail) under Section 438, Cr. P.C. from the High Court or the Court of Session but denied regular bail by the Court below, has once again to move another application for anticipatory bail under Section 438, Cr. P.C. for the grant of same relief which he had once obtained. In that event, this would amount to introduction of a new procedure, which is neither contemplated under Section 438, Cr. P.C. nor any such procedure appears to have been conceived of by the Supreme Court through interpretative process of law, either in the case of Gurbaksh Singh or in the case of K. L. Verma." (12) In the present case before Us, the only difference is that while in the case before the Full Bench, there was a refusal of regular bail, but here, the petitioners did not submit to the jurisdiction of the Id. Court below for obtaining regular bail within the stipulated period of time on the plea of miscommunication. But in our considered view the principles as laid down therein are also equally applicable to the fact situation of this case. Court below for obtaining regular bail within the stipulated period of time on the plea of miscommunication. But in our considered view the principles as laid down therein are also equally applicable to the fact situation of this case. (13) Having regard to the legal and factual aspects as discussed in proceeding paragraphs We are of the considered opinion that the instant petition under Section 438. Cr. P.C. being the second application is not maintainable since the relief as sought for in this petition for anticipatory bail has already been obtained by them from the Id. Sessions Judge, and as such instant petition is liable to be rejected. (14) Accordingly, the instant petition under Section 438, Cr. P.C. stands dismissed. (15) However, as prayed for the petitioners are at liberty to move before the Id. Sessions Judge, 24 Pgs. (North) for extension of validity period of anticipatory bail order passed earlier, if they are so advised. It is, however, made clear that in the event of filing such petition, the Id. Sessions Judge, 24 Pgs. (North) at Barasat will take appropriate decision in accordance with his judicial discretion. (16) In such circumstances, C.R.M. 7431 of 2009 stands disposed of accordingly. (17) Lower Court Record be returned forthwith. Petition dismissed.