1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2972 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1922 OF 2010 Vishal Chandrakant Mhatre and Anr. ...Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents ----- Mr.S.R. Borulkar i/b. Mr. Nitin V. Gangal for Applicants Mr.M.S. Mohite i/b. Mr. V.V. Purwant for Original Complainant. Mr.A.S. Shitole and Mrs. P.P. Bhosale -APP for the State ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 8TH JULY, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants, the learned Counsel for the Original Complainant and the Learned APP for the State. 2. The Applicants initially had filed a criminal application seeking modification of the order passed by the Sessions Court asking the Applicants to remain present in the Court when the application for anticipatory bail was to be heard and decided. In the 2 criminal application which was filed in this Court, the Learned Single Judge -Brother Shri A.R. Joshi J. by his order dated 30th June, 2010 observed that since the only relief claimed by the Applicants in the said application was for modification or quashing the order asking the Applicants to remain present in the Court, the proper remedy was to file a writ petition and not a criminal application. 3. In view of this order passed by the Learned Single Judge, the Applicants have amended the criminal application and it is now converted into the Writ Petition pursuant to the leave granted by Brother Shri A.R. Joshi J. 4. The short point arising out in the writ petition is whether the Learned Sessions Court could have asked the Applicants to remain present in the Court without granting ad-interim relief. The Learned Counsel for the Applicants has relied upon a judgment of this Court in Criminal Application No. 5307 of 2009 in the case of Ashik Rameshchandra Shah & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in CDJ 2010 BHC 558. 5. The learned APP for the State has fairly conceded that in view of the said judgment of this Court, interim protection ought to have been granted to the 3 Applicants. 6. Shri Mohite the learned Counsel for the Original Complainant submitted that in fact the Applicants remained absent for 2/3 dates and therefore, the Sessions Court was constrained to pass this order. He submitted that the junior lawyer appeared on that date had not asked for ad-interim relief and possibly, therefore, the Sessions Court may not have granted ad- interim relief. 7. Be that as it may, since now it is fairly conceded by the Learned APP for the State and the learned Counsel for the Original Complainant that in view of the ratio of the judgment in the case of Ashik Rameshchandra Shah (supra), the Applicants are entitled to get interim protection. The impugned order passed by the Sessions Court is set aside and is substituted by the following order. 8. The Applicants shall remain present in the Sessions Court on 13th July, 2010. The Applicants, however, in the meantime, shall not be arrested in connection with C.R. No. 58 of 2010 dated 8.5.2010 registered with Navghar Police Station for the offence punishable under sections 302, 120 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 3 and 25 of 4 the Arms Act. The Sessions Court shall decide the case on merits and in accordance with law. 9. The learned Counsel for the Applicants makes a statement that the Applicants shall remain present in the Sessions Court on the date of hearing of the application. 10. Application is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)