1 Appln 4765-10 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4765 OF 2010 Trimbak Babu Shirwale ..Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4737 OF 2010 Sachin Sahebrao Tharte ..Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr.Aniket Vagal i/b. Mr.Pradip Rajput, Advocate, for the Applicants in both the matters Mrs.S.D.Shinde, APP, for the Respondent  State in Cri.Appln.No.4765/2010 Mrs.P.P.Shinde, APP, for the Respondent  State in Cri.Appln.No.4737/2010 CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 22ND OCTOBER, 2010 P.C. . The applicants seek anticipatory bail in connection with C.R.No.236 of 2010 for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 380, 427, 448, 504, 506(II) read with Section 34 of 2 Appln 4765-10 the Indian Penal Code registered with Nehru Nagar Police Station, Mumbai. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicants and the learned APPs. 3. The applicants are not entitled to any indulgence because the learned Sessions Judge granted interim protection to the applicants and during that period they were directed to attend Police Station concerned everyday from 11.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. While applicant No.1 Trimbak Babu Shirwale attended the police station only on one day whereas the applicant No.2 Sachin Sahebrao Tharte did not attend even once. The learned Counsel for the applicants submits because of illiteracy and gap in communication between Advocate and applicants as also an applicant Sachin's grand mother was ailing and thereafter, she expired, two applicants did not attend Police Station as directed. As rightly pointed out by the 3 Appln 4765-10 learned APP if there was gap in communication between Advocate and applicants it is not clear as to why applicant No.1 Trimbak had attended Police Station on one day but failed to attend the police station thereafter and why Sachin did not attend Police Station at all. In any case, if the applicants had been shown indulgence by the Sessions Judge and had not followed the terms on which they have granted interim protection, they are not entitled to discretionary reliefs. 4. Both Criminal Applications are rejected. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)