1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5308 OF 2009 1. Lopa Girish Ghai 2. Rajiv Ghai ....Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent ----- Shri Kunal Cheema for Applicants Shri J.P. Kharge -APP for State ------ CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 26TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C. 1. Mentioned not on board. 2. It is submitted that an interim order was granted in favour of the Applicants by the Sessions Court on 18th November, 2009 and the said ad-interim anticipatory bail was to be in force till 25.11.2009. An application for exemption was filed by the Applicants on 25.11.2009 when the matter came up on board. 3. Grievance of the learned Counsel for the Applicants is that the Learned Sessions Judge without 1 continuing the ad-interim order, has now kept the matter for further hearing on 27.11.2009. It is submitted that no reasons have been given by the learned Sessions Judge for not extending the anticipatory bail. It is submitted that if the Applicants are arrested today, the said application for anticipatory bail will become infructuous. 4. The learned Counsel for the Applicants has annexed the certificate of Dr.Ranjeet D. Nagpal, in which he has stated that the Applicant No.2 is not in a position to travel out of his home for the reasons stated in the said certificate. Taking into consideration the said certificate, ad-interim protection granted by the Sessions Court on 18th November, 2009 is continued till the hearing and final disposal of the anticipatory bail application pending in the Sessions Court since the Applicants apprehend that if the Sessions Court refuses to allow the application for anticipatory bail and the Applicants are directed to remain present by the Learned Sessions Judge, they will be arrested on the same day. A complaint has been filed against the present Applicants by their licencee who has alleged that certain machinery belonging to the licencee was not found in the suit premises and, therefore, he suspects that the said machinery must have been stolen by the 1 landlords- the Applicants herein and, as such, the complaint under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the present Applicants. It is an admitted position that the dispute is pending between the Applicants and the Complainant in the Small Causes Court and certain interim orders have been passed. Taking into consideration these peculiar facts and circumstances, if the application for anticipatory bail is rejected by the Sessions Court, the interim order to continue for a period of 4 days thereafter. However, it is clarified that this order may not be treated as precedent. 5. Application is disposed of. 6. Parties to act on the authenticated copy. (V.M. KANADE J.)