1 1 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1789 OF 2009 Vishwas Purshottam Mhatre .. Applicant. Vs. State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr.A.P.Mundargi, Senior Counsel i/b Mr.Kunal Cheema for the applicant. Mr.J.P.Yagnik A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 29TH APRIL, 2009. DATED : 29TH APRIL, 2009. DATED : 29TH APRIL, 2009. P.C.: . Heard learned senior counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in C.R.No.50 of 2009 of Uran police station. The said crime has been registered against the applicant for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under sections 387, 506(2) and 504 of IPC. 3. Mr.Mundargi, learned senior counsel for the applicants submits that the main application bearing Misc. Application No.281 of 2009 filed by the present applicant seeking anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court has not been disposed of with reasoned order. The only order dated 15.4.2009, according to 2 2 2 Mr.Mundargi, passed by the learned Judge on the main application for anticipatory bail is as follows: "Since the application at Exhibit-4 has been rejected, the instant application is also disposed of". 4. Except this, there is no order placed on record to show that the criminal application No.281 of 2009 was considered on merits and disposed of finally. In the circumstances the aforementioned order dated 15.4.2009 is set aside. The learned Sessions Judge is directed to pass speaking order on the criminal misc. application No.281 of 2009, as expeditiously as possible and preferrably within a period of two weeks from today. Interim protection granted by this court vide order dated 21.4.2009 shall remain operative till disposal of the application for anticipatory bail (bearing criminal application No.281 of 2009). 4. While passing this order I shall not be understood to have examined merits of the case and the Sessions Court shall decide the application for anticipatory bail uninfluenced by the observations made in this order. . The application is disposed of. 3 3 3 (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.)