IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2092 OF 2009 Jagdish @ Jabba Dhirubhai Koladiya .. Applicant. Vs. State of Maharashtra .. Respondents. Mr.Rajiv Ringu for the applicant. Mr.J.P.Yagnik A.P.P. for the State. Coram: D.B. BHOSALE, J. Dated : 9th June, 2009 P.C. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The only grievance made by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the learned Additional Sessions Judge while rejecting the application for bail did not consider the prayer for bail under section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He submitted that the applicant was entitled for bail under the said provision and such ground was raised in the application dated 7.4.2009. It is not clear whether the point, as raised before this court, was argued before the trial Court. The applicant has not stated in the instant application that he argued such point and still it was not considered by the learned Judge. Be that as it may, I am inclined to set aside the order dated 15.4.2009 and to restore criminal miscellaneous application No.275 of 2009 to file. Order accordingly. The learned Judge is directed to decide the said application afresh within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The learned Judge shall consider whether the applicant is entitled for bail under section 167(2) of the Code. With these observations the application is disposed of. (D.B. BHOSALE, J.)