Short answer. Usually not. The protection attaches only after the accused has pleaded to the charge, so a dismissal handed down before arraignment normally leaves the prosecution free to refile. Jeopardy never began, and the rule also requires a valid charge and a court with jurisdiction.
What the law says
after the accused had pleaded to the charge
Rule 117, Section 7 — Former conviction or acquittal; double jeopardy. Read the full provision →
What the law says
the case against him dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent by a court of competent jurisdiction
Rule 117, Section 7 — Former conviction or acquittal; double jeopardy. Read the full provision →
Jeopardy has to begin before it can bar anything
The rule lists what must be present before a dismissal bars a second prosecution, and one of those conditions is that the dismissal came after the accused had pleaded to the charge. Entering a plea is the moment the protection attaches. Before that, there is a pending case but no jeopardy, so a dismissal at that stage ends the case without ending the State's ability to bring it again. This is why an early dismissal can feel like a decisive win and still leave you exposed.
The other conditions the rule sets
A plea alone is not enough. The rule also requires a court of competent jurisdiction, and a valid complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction. So a case dismissed because the charging document was fatally defective, or because the court had no jurisdiction over the offense, generally does not bar a refiling either — the earlier proceeding was never capable of producing a valid conviction. Each of these is a separate requirement, and the protection fails if any one of them is missing.
Dismissals you asked for
There is a further limit worth understanding, because it catches people out. The dismissal must have been without the express consent of the accused. A case terminated on your own motion is ordinarily treated as consented to, so it does not bar a refiling even if you had already been arraigned. That is a genuine trade-off in practice: moving to dismiss can end the present case quickly while leaving the door open, whereas letting the prosecution fail on its own evidence may close it for good.
What this means for you now
If the dismissal came before arraignment, plan on the possibility that the prosecution will refile, and use the time to understand why the case failed the first time. If the defect lay in the evidence, refiling may not improve matters; if it was a curable formal problem, it probably will be cured. If you believe you had in fact been arraigned and had pleaded before the dismissal, that single point changes the analysis completely and is worth establishing from the record.