1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1861 OF 2008. Digambar Wanare ..vs.. State of Maharashtra and anr. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1843/08. Vijay Sukhdeo Chavan ..vs.. State of Maharashtra. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1810/2008. Anita Deshmukh ..vs.. State of Maharashtra. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1847/2008. Prashant Ajjainkar ..vs.. State of Maharashtra. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1802/2008. Padmakar Patond ..vs.. The State of Maharashtra and anr. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, office Memoranda of Coram Court's or Judge's appearances, Court's orders or directions order and Registrar's order. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= CORAM: C.L.PANGARKAR,J. DATE : 16th May, 2008. 1. Heard Mr.Anil Mardikar, Mr.Sirpurkar and Mr.P.S.Wathore, Advocates for the applicants and Mr.Nitin Sambre, Government Pleader for the 2 State. 2. All these applications can be disposed of by a common order. 3. These applications have been preferred for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicants had applied for grant of anticipatory bail because of the fact that crime No.16/2008 under Sections 363, 376, 120-B and several other offences under the Indian Penal Code together with Sections 3,4,5 and 6 of Immoral Traffic Act have been registered against them. 4. Before the applications were actually heard by the court there was a direction to each of the applicants to appear before the Sessions Court. Inspite of such direction, it appears that the applicants did not appear before the Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge, the day on which the applications were heard found that since none of the applicants was present they have committed breach of the direction of the court. He observed that since none of the applicants have chosen to remain present before the court, their applications are liable to be rejected. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, rejected all the 3 applications because of the fact that the applicants had chosen to remain absent before him. The order passed by the Sessions Judge goes to show that it does not give any other reason for rejection of the applications. Obviously, therefore, the applications of the applicants were not considered by the learned Sessions Judge on merit at all. In the circumstances, I find that it is desirable and it would be in the interest of justice to set aside the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and direct the learned Sessions Judge to rehear the applications and decide them afresh. In the circumstances, I pass the following order. The order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is set aside. The learned Sessions Judge is directed to rehear the applications and decide all the applications afresh. All the applicants are directed to remain present before the Sessions Judge tomorrow i.e. on 17/5/2008 at 11.00 a.m. If any of the applicants chooses not to remain present before the Sessions Judge, the Sessions Judge need not hear his application for anticipatory bail at all and in that case it would be treated that the application of that applicant who has chosen to remain absent is rejected by this court. In the meantime, the applicants shall not be arrested at least till 11.00 a.m. tomorrow (i.e. 4 17/5/2008). The Registrar of this court is directed to inform the District and Sessions Judge, Akola or concerned Judge who may deal with these applications that he has to rehear all these applications tomorrow at 11.00 a.m. The communication may be made by the telephone if no other mode is available. Hamdast allowed. JUDGE chute