IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4315 OF 2009 Daulatbhai Somabhai Patel ..... ..... ...Applicant V/s The Union Territory of India & Anr. ..... ..... .Respondents. Mr.Abhaykumar Apte, Adv. for the applicant. Mr.D.A.Nalwade, Government Pleader for the Respondent No.1. Mrs.M.R.Tidake, APP for the State. CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 24th Sept., 2009. PC: CR No.136/09 has been registered against the present applicant by Silvassa police station for the offence under section 376 of IPC. The applicant prior to the filing of the present application had moved an application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Judge. The applicant also claims to have moved an application for interim anticipatory bail but as the Sessions Judge directed the applicant to remain present while hearing of the interim anticipatory bail application he is constrained to move the present application. The Government Pleader Shri D.A.Nalwade has submitted that statement of the victim is recorded under section 164 of Cri.P.C. It is also submitted that the application praying for interim bail applications so also anticipatory bail are listed for hearing on 1.10.2009. In that view of the matter I am of the considered opinion that as the application moved by the present applicant has not been decided by the Sessions Judge on merit it would be in furtherance of cause of justice if the Sessions Judge decides the anticipatory bail application itself on its own merit and in 1 accordance with law. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that the applicant would remain present at the time of hearing of the anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Judge on 1.10.09 on which date the matter is already listed. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that the applicant need to be protected till 1.10.09 so also for a period of one week thereafter so that he has the liberty to file application before this Court in the event his application is rejected by the Sessions Judge. It would be just and fair to protect the applicant till 1.10.09 i.e. till his application moved under section 438 of Cri.P.C. is decided by the Sessions Judge. However I am not inclined to protect the applicant for any time further. In the result I pass the following order: The applicant shall remain present before the Sessions Judge on 1.10.09 on which date the application moved by the applicant under section 438 is listed for hearing. Till hearing of the application by Sessions Judge on 1.10.09 no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. In the event the applicant fails to remain present on 1.10.09 when his application is to be taken up for hearing the Sessions Judge would be justified in dismissing the said application solely on the ground of non appearance of the applicant. Application stands disposed of. 24.9.2009. 2