CRIMINAL MISC. NO.M-33439 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 21, 2011 Kulwant Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr.Dalbir Singh Pheruman, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Earlier anticipatory bail application was dismissed long ago. Counsel, when asked to show if the second application for anticipatory bail can be maintained, has only submitted that it is maintainable. This issue of maintainability of second anticipatory bail application was considered in detail by this Court in Criminal Misc. No.12002 M of 2006 (Meena Grewal Vs. State of Haryana), decided on February 26, 2007. View taken is that right to file second bail application is restrictive one. It has been observed that second anticipatory bail application may be entertained but it has to be on very limited grounds. Court, CRIMINAL MISC. NO.M-33439 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 2 }: which noticed the gist of divergent view, has held that:- “.....second anticipatory bail application is not to be entertained in routine but can be so entertained or is competent on a very limited grounds, which may be a change in facts, situation or some law etc. Where earlier prayer for anticipatory bail was got dismissed as withdrawn without permission to file a fresh one, then entertaining of second application would obviously be aimed at seeking review of the earlier decision, which may not be possible, considering the provisions of procedural Code.” The petitioner has not taken any permission while withdrawing earlier anticipatory bail application. That being the position, the present petition is not maintainable. The petition is accordingly dismissed on the ground of maintainability. November 21, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE