1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4656 OF 2009 Smt. Pratiksha Bharat Panchal & ors........ Applicants versus The State of Maharashtra ........Respondent. Mr. S.V. Marwadi i/b. R.V. Jha adv. for the Applicants Mr. D.A. Nalawade Spl PP. for the Respondent/State. Mrs. S.D. Shinde APP for State. CORAM: A. P DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 15th October, 2009. P. C.: 1. The present applicants are relations of the husband of the complainant. Consequent upon the complaint filed by the complainant, offence under section 498-A, 406 read with 34 and 109 of IPC came to be registered against the present applicants. Apprehending arrest, the applicants filed an application before the Sessions Judge, Daman and interim protection was granted to the applicants. However by an order dated 29-9-2009 the application for anticipatory bail has been rejected without touching the merit of the matter and mainly for the reason that the counsel for the applicant was seeking adjournment without any justification. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that settlement talks were going on between the parties and as such the application for adjournment was moved and the same was not 2 opposed by the complainant. However, abruptly the application came to be rejected. In his submission, ends of justice would be met if the applicants are permitted to move a fresh application seeking anticipatory bail and by issuing a direction to the Sessions Judge to decide the same on merit. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances and more so the fact that the application for anticipatory bail was pending from 24-1-2008, in my considered opinion it would have been in furtherance of cause of justice, had the Sessions Judge decided the said application on merit instead of dismissing the same in default. In my view ends of justice would be met by permitting the applicant to move fresh application for anticipatory bail. On such application being moved by the present applicants, the Sessions Judge shall decide the same in accordance with the law after affording an opportunity of hearing to all concerned. Hence the following order. 3. The applicant is granted permission to move fresh application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail which shall be filed within one week from today. The Sessions Judge shall decide the application which the applicants proposes to file as expeditiously as possible after affording an opportunity of hearing to all concerned. The Sessions Judge shall decide the application within a period of one week from the date of its filing. The interim protection shall continue for a period of two weeks from today. Application is disposed of. 4. Leave to delete applicant no.3 granted. (A. P. Deshpande, J.)