IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPLICATION NO. 2752 OF 2009 Prashant Dilip Patil & anr ........ Applicants versus State of Maharashtra ........Respondent. Mr. P. R. Arjunwadkar adv. For the Applicants Mr. H.J. Dedhia APP For the State. CORAM: A. P DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 20th July, 2009. P. C.: 1. The present applicants are accused in C. R. No. 177/09 registered with Mumbra Police station for offences under sections 392, 453, 323 read with section 34 of IPC and section 3(1) and section (x) of the Prevention of Atrocities Act. Apprehending arrest, the present applicants moved the Sessions Judge, Thane and sought anticipatory bail. The application has been rejected by a criptic order without dealing with the merit of the matter. The rejection of the application is on account of absence of the applicant/accused. As per the learned counsel for the applicant neither the APP had moved an application seeking presence of the accused at the time of hearing of the application nor did the court so directed. As it was neither asked for and/or directed by the court that the applicant/accused should remain present at the time of hearing of the anticipatory bail application, in the submission of the learned counsel, the order rejecting the application is wholly unsustainable. The learned APP does not dispute the fact that neither was there any application moved by the APP nor had the court directed the presence of the applicant before the court at the time of hearing of the application seeking anticipatory bail. In that view of the matter, it is obvious that the impugned order which does not consider the merit of the application is bad in law. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out that none of the applicants are named in the complaint, and hence it is submitted that the applicants need to be protected. The learned APP submits that as the Sessions Judge has not considered the application on its merit, it would be in furtherance of cause of justice to direct reconsideration of the application by the Sessions Court. I am also of the view that as the application stands rejected by the Sessions Court solely on ground of absence of the accused, more so, when there was no direction to the applicant/accused to remain present at the time of hearing of the anticipatory bail application, I deem it appropriate to protect the applicants for a period of two weeks from today within which time the applicants shall approach the Sessions Court by filing a fresh application. Hence without touching the merit of the present application I pass the following order. 3. In the event of arrest of the applicants by police, in Crime No. 177/09 under sections. 392, 452, 323 read with 34 or IPC and u/s 3(1)(x) of the Prevention of Atrocities Act, the applicants shall be released on bail on execution of personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with one or two sureties in the like amount. This order shall remain in force only for a period of 15 days so that the applicants can approach the Sessions Court by moving a fresh application for anticipatory bail. The Sessions Judge shall decide the application which the applicants would move uninfluenced by the observations made in this order and on merit in accordance with law. The applicants shall be bound by the conditions stipulated under section 438(2) of Cr.P.C. The application stands disposed of. (A. P. Deshpande, J.)