IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.12256 of 2010 Md. Moin, S/o Sk. Kafil, resident of Village- Dhuria, P.O. & P.S. Kadwa, District-Katihar………….Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Marjina Khatoon, wife of Md. Moin, daughter of Sk. Jamal, resident of Village & P.O. Channi, P.S. Kadwa, District-Katihar. At present residing with her husband Md. Moin at Village- Dhuria, P.O. and P.S. Kadwa, District- Katihar (complainant)………………..Opposite Parties. For the petitioner :- Mr. Sagir Ahmad, Advocate. For the complainant :- Mr. Shailendra Kr.Dwivedi,Advocate. For the State :- Mr. Umesh Lal Verma A.P.P. ----------- 2. 06. 05. 2010. Heard the parties. In a criminal prosecution for offences under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the petitioner has moved third time before this Court by way of filing the present application for grant of anticipatory bail. The first application filed by the petitioner was disposed of by order dated 23. 12. 2008 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 44671 of 2008 vide Annexure-2 and by that order he was granted anticipatory bail for a limited period of six months with a liberty to move before court below for grant of regular bail subsequent to the development in matrimonial suit. When the application was moved before this Court second time by filing Cr. Misc. No. No. 24820/09 for grant of anticipatory bail, the same was disposed by order dated 19. 08. 2009 vide Annexure-3 with an observation that there is remedy available to the petitioner by approaching the court below for grant of regular bail. Despite observation made there in that 2 order, petitioner has not surrendered in the court below till date and on some plea he has filed the present application for grant of anticipatory bail. Obviously, in view of order passed on 23. 12. 2008 vide Annexure-2, the petitioner had surrendered to the jurisdiction of the learned court below. Now it is well settled that once the accused is either arrested by the police or surrenders to the jurisdiction of the court, then he/she is not entitled to move again for anticipatory bail invoking the jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail is not maintainable. It is therefore, dismissed. The petitioner must surrender in the court below in connection with Complaint Case No. 400/2008 within a period of four weeks from today and seek regular bail, if so advised, which shall be disposed of on its own merit without being prejudiced by the present order. The petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all issues before the Magistrate for the purpose of grant of regular bail. m.p. ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)