Judgment : 1. Common petitioner in the petitions who is proceeded either as the sole accused or one among the accused in six crimes, all of them registered at Chottanikkara Police Station for offences punishable under sections 406, 420, 120B read with section 34 IPC, has filed these applications for the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for short the Code. 2. Out of the six crimes proceeded against petitioner five of them are registered on complaints filed by private parties before the magistrate and then referred to police for investigation, and the other suo motu registered by police; and all such crimes are now under investigation. Imputation against petitioner is that she had collected substantial sum from several persons, de facto complainant in the five crimes registered on private complaints and others making false promises and inducing them to believe that she would arrange employment in a public authority, namely, Airport Authority of India. Petitioner is totally innocent and she has no role in the transactions imputed over providing of job in Airport Authority of India, is her case. She had paid a sum of Rs.70,000/- to one Santhoshkumar for obtaining a job for her son in Airport Authority of India, and when she informed the same to her friends they had approached Santhoshkumar and paid him amounts to secure jobs in the above Authority, according to petitioner. Later realising that Santhoshkumar had cheated her she filed a complaint before police and crime registered thereof is now pending investigation. Meanwhile the above crimes have been registered implicating her as the sole accused or one among the accused alleging that she had cheated several persons with false promises of assuring employment in Airport Authority. Submitting that she is prepared to cooperate with the investigation and she will abide by any condition imposed by this court she seeks the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. She submits that she is a chronic kidney patient undergoing treatment for last more than 17 years. She had previously moved applications for anticipatory bail in all the above crimes, but, it is stated, later they were withdrawn. Copy of Common Order passed on previous applications is produced with the respective petition. 3. She submits that she is a chronic kidney patient undergoing treatment for last more than 17 years. She had previously moved applications for anticipatory bail in all the above crimes, but, it is stated, later they were withdrawn. Copy of Common Order passed on previous applications is produced with the respective petition. 3. A statement has been filed by the investigating officer, Sub Inspector of Police, Chottanikkara in one of the applications (B.A.No.2139/2013) raising contentions in common opposing the applications. Petitioner had committed similar kind of cheating of more than fifty five persons. Her application for anticipatory bail had been turned down previously by Sessions Court, and, later, she moved applications for such relief before this court, which too were dismissed as withdrawn. Some of the crimes were registered against petitioner with her son and daughter as co-accused, but, later, her son and daughter had been deleted from the array of accused and now investigation of all crimes is proceeding against petitioner as the sole accused. Investigation of crimes has revealed complicity of petitioner of cheating several persons, and her arrest and custodial interrogation is essential, submits the investigating officer. 4. Petitioner has produced with each application copy of the Common Order passed by this court in her previous applications as annexure. That Order dated 4.2.2013 reads ”Dismissed as withdrawn”. After dismissal of previous applications petitioner has filed the present applications one month later. A learned single Judge of this court has held in Saji and others v. State of Kerala and another (B.A.No.7610/2008) that repeated and successive application for anticipatory bail cannot be entertained. Similar view has been expressed by other co-ordinate benches also. So much so, the first question emerging for consideration is whether the present applications moved by petitioner after dismissal of her previous applications are entertainable and worthy of consideration for disposal on merits. 5. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner Sri.C.P. Udayabhanu submitted that in the case of Saji and others (B.A.No.7610/2008) referred to above their previous application had been decided on merits holding they were not entitled to anticipatory bail, and, in that context this court held that entertaining of their subsequent application would amount to review of the previous Order. So far as the case of present petitioner, her previous applications had been 'dismissed as withdrawn' and as such there is no bar in entertaining her applications moved afresh, is the submission of counsel. So far as the case of present petitioner, her previous applications had been 'dismissed as withdrawn' and as such there is no bar in entertaining her applications moved afresh, is the submission of counsel. Her claim for pre arrest bail was not considered by the court previously on merits and as such present applications deserve to be entertained and decided, is the further submission of counsel. Learned Public Prosecutor Sri.C.Rasheed challenged maintainability of the applications contending that a subsequent application after dismissal of previous application whether it be on merits or as withdrawn without reservation to move afresh cannot be entertained. Petitioner had applied for the discretionary relief in her previous applications, but, realising that she would not obtain such relief got her applications dismissed as withdrawn. Setting forth the same case canvassed earlier in her previous applications she has approached this court again with the present applications, is the submission of learned Public Prosecutor to contend that her applications are not entertainable. 6. Section 438 of the Code is a procedural provision which confers a statutory right to a person to seek pre arrest bail where he has reason to believe that he may be arrested for a nonbailable offence. Any person until he is found guilty after due trial is entitled to have the benefit of presumption of his innocence. Having regard to the right to life, insulated under Article 21 of the Constitution that the procedure established by law for depriving a person of his liberty must be fair, just and reasonable, the aforesaid procedural provision has been incorporated in the Code conferring a statutory right to a person to claim the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail from court, accepting the recommendation of the Law Commission in its 41st report. The words 'anticipatory bail' used in section 438 of the Code is a misnomer, and it has been used so on the expression made by the Law Commission in the above report. Bail is essentially release from restraint rather release from the custody of police. In the case of anticipatory bail it essentially comes into operation only when a person proceeded for an offence is arrested. Bail is essentially release from restraint rather release from the custody of police. In the case of anticipatory bail it essentially comes into operation only when a person proceeded for an offence is arrested. In a case where the accusation appears to arise from motives other than furthering of ends of justice or with the object of injuring or humiliating a person by having him arrested, the need for passing an order of anticipatory bail in his favour to secure the ends of justice would arise. However, not only the interest of the individual who comes before the court apprehending his arrest in a non bailable offence that has to be considered when he seeks for an anticipatory bail, but, other circumstances involved and presented in the case also,including the interest of the public or the State. Combined effect of all the circumstances must weigh with the court in deciding whether the discretionary relief applied for is to be granted or rejected. The apex court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (AIR 1980 SC 1632), which is considered as the local classicus on matters touching upon anticipatory bail has succinctly pointed out what are the factors to be looked into in the exercise over such discretionary relief. In the above decision the apex Court has stated thus:- “The nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the context of the events likely to lead to the making of the charges, a reasonable possibility of the applicant's presence not being secured at the trial, a reasonable apprehension that witnesses will be tampered with and “the larger interests of the public or the State” are some of the considerations which the court has to keep in mind while deciding an application for anticipatory bail.” 7. Viewed in the above perspective the question has to be considered whether the discretionary relief covered under section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure could be claimed by a person moving successive applications for such relief. That section confers right of a person to seek such relief from the Sessions Court or High Court conferring jurisdiction on both courts to decide his entitlement thereto. However, once the superior court is moved for such relief, a party cannot seek for the same relief before the inferior forum. In the present case petitioner had unsuccessfully moved before Sessions Judge for anticipatory bail and that was turned down. However, once the superior court is moved for such relief, a party cannot seek for the same relief before the inferior forum. In the present case petitioner had unsuccessfully moved before Sessions Judge for anticipatory bail and that was turned down. After passing of such order she approached this court, and later her petitions were dismissed as withdrawn. Is she entitled to as of right to move this court again with fresh applications for seeking the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail? Her previous petitions were not decided on merits but were dismissed as withdrawn no way enable her to prosecute her applications to have a decision thereof on merits. When the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court has been invoked for grant of discretionary relief by a person who has reason to believe that he may be arrested for a non bailable offence withdrawal of his application later, which is at his volition, cannot be viewed as totally insignificant and having no bearing on his entitlement to move an application afresh for the same relief. 8. Rajasthan High Court in Ganesh Raj v. State of Rajasthan and others (2005 Crl.L.J 2086) and Calcutta High Court in Sudip Sen v. The State of West Bengal(2010 Crl.L.J.4628) have considered maintainability of a second application for anticipatory bail. Rajasthan High Court in Ganesh Raj's case has taken the view that second or subsequent bail application can be filed if there is a change in the fact situation or in law which requires the earlier view being interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete. However, the above view is expressed with a rider that this is the limited area in which an accused who was denied bail earlier could move a subsequent application. In Sudip Sen's case Calcutta High Court has taken the view that a person can move a successive application, but, only on the ground of change in the facts and circumstances of the case due to subsequent events. 9. In the context it has to be noticed that a second or successive application for regular bail cannot be entertained as a matter of course. 9. In the context it has to be noticed that a second or successive application for regular bail cannot be entertained as a matter of course. A person proceeded as accused and in custody is entitled to move successive application for bail after dismissal of his previous application, but, entertainability of subsequent bail application depends upon the satisfaction of change in the fact situation or in law which requires interference with the previous order. The apex Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan and another (2005 Crl.L.J.944) has stated that if there is a change in fact situation a second application for regular bail after rejection of a previous application can be allowed, but, cautioning the principles to be taken note of and followed in such case. In the decision it has been stated thus:- “The principles of res judicata and such analogous principles although are not applicable in a criminal proceeding, still the Courts are bound by the doctrine of judicial discipline having regard to the hierarchical system prevailing in our country. The findings of a higher Court or a coordinate bench must receive serious consideration at the hands of the Court entertaining bail application at a later stage when the same had been rejected earlier. In such an event, the courts must give due weight to the grounds which weighed with the former or higher court in rejecting the bail application. Ordinarily the issues which had been canvassed earlier would not be permitted to be re-agitated on the same grounds, as the same would lead to a speculation and uncertainty in the administration of justice and may lead to forum hunting.” 10. Withdrawal of previous applications of petitioner and dismissal of such applications as withdrawn by orders of this court would only mean that the petitions were not pressed. That would only indicate that petitioner who applied for the discretionary relief was not interested in prosecuting her claim for such relief and, consequently, her petitions were dismissed as withdrawn. Dismissal of previous petitions as withdrawn cannot be canvassed as a ground for filing a fresh application on the premise that there was no decision on merits of her case. Entertaining a subsequent application on the above ground in effect may give rise to the evil of forum hunting which cannot at all be allowed. Dismissal of previous petitions as withdrawn cannot be canvassed as a ground for filing a fresh application on the premise that there was no decision on merits of her case. Entertaining a subsequent application on the above ground in effect may give rise to the evil of forum hunting which cannot at all be allowed. Further more, the grant or rejection of anticipatory bail depends on the exercise of judicial discretion by the court having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances presented in the case. A person after invoking the statutory right to seek such relief and then giving it up by withdrawal, is deemed to have abandoned his right for such discretionary relief. His right to seek regular bail as provided by the Code remains intact despite rejection of his claim for anticipatory bail. That also has to be considered and taken note in examining his entitlement to move afresh for the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail after dismissal of his previous application for such relief whether it was withdrawn or on merits. No party can claim as of right to move a fresh application for anticipatory bail after dismissal of his previous application for such discretionary relief. However, in an exceptional case a successive application can be entertained where party is able to show that non-consideration of his application would result in failure or miscarriage of justice. If a previous application was disposed recording the submission of prosecutor that no crime was registered against petitioner, but, later if the applicant is proceeded as an accused for a non bailable offence entertaining and considering of his second application may be called for. That of course is a case of exceptional nature which demand consideration of the subsequent application on the change of fact situation. 11. No second application can be entertained on circumstances canvassed under the previous application with no change in 'fact situation' where it had been dismissed on merits or as withdrawn. On the submissions made in these applications I find the same set of circumstances canvassed earlier with no change in fact situation is pressed into service by petitioner to entertain her applications after dismissal of her previous applications as withdrawn. That being so, I find these petitions are not entertainable and petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief of pre arrest bail. Petitions are dismissed.