IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1803/09 (Pradip Anandrao Meghe ..vs. State of Maharashtra.) CRIME NO. 480/2008 OF P.S. WARDHA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- CORAM : S.R.DONGAONKAR, J. DATE : 6 th May, 2009 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1811/2009 Heard Shri Naidu, Advocate for applicant. Filing of copy of F.I.R. dispensed with for the present. Same be filed within a period of 15 days. Application stands disposed of. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1803/2009: Heard Shri Naidu, Advocate for the applicant and Shri Sonare APP for state by waiving notice and opposes the application. The applicant is claiming protection under section 438 of Cr.P.C. to the limited extent for such time, so as to enable him to move the Sessions Court for bail. The applicant's application for grant of bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that the accused/ applicant had not surrendered before the court and therefore, the provisions of section 439 of Cr.P.C. could not be invoked. It appears that the applicant was initially tried before the Magistrate, however, during the course of the proceedings, it was found that he is liable for the offence u/s 326 of I.P.C., for which learned Magistrate could not grant bail. The applicant was already on bail during the trial proceedings. Learned Sessions Judge has rejected the application for bail simply on the ground that he was not in custody. As he was facing trial before the Magistrate, release of the applicant on bail would have been perhaps only formality. As the jurisdiction was with the learned Sessions Judge, he was called upon to exercise the same when the applicant had applied for bail. In my opinion, it should not have been rejected by him simply because the applicant was not in formal custody. The bail of the applicant itself shows that he was subjected to jurisdiction of the court. Whatever, may be the case, learned counsel for the applicant now submits that he should be protected till he moves the Sessions Court for bail. Accordingly, applicant is allowed to appear before Sessions Court On 11.5.2009 when he can move the fresh application for bail. Learned Sessions Judge to consider the same immediately without being influenced by his earlier order. Application disposed of. Hamdast granted. JUDGE SMP