{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2201 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3720 OF 2009 Bhanudas s/o Eknath Kotkar & Others APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Another RESPONDENTS ....... Mrs. S.S.Jadhav, Advocate for the applicants Mr. P.P.More, APP for respondents State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 16th June 2010 PER COURT: 1. By the present criminal application, the applicants have prayed for extension of one week's time to surrender and to apply for regular bail before the competent criminal court. 2. This Court had granted anticipatory bail to the present applicants vide order dated 30th November 2009 passed in Criminal Application No.3720/2009. This Court, while passing the said order, had made it clear that the interim protection granted on 29th October 2009 is confirmed, however it was to remain in force {2} only for the period of 6 weeks and during that period the applicants were directed to apply for regular bail. Inspite of this fact, due to wrong advice given by the advocate appearing in lower court, which is spelt out in para 4 of the present application, the applicant did not apply for regular bail. If such wrong advice is given to the applicants, then the advocate is incompetent to practice in criminal courts. This Court need not dilate on this aspect. However, this is not an excuse to extend the time to surrender. In the result, the application, which is sans merits stands rejected. The lower court is directed to consider the application of the applicants on its own merits and dispose of the same in accordance with law. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln2201-10