IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3913 OF 2009 Umakant s/o Ganpat Jadhav ..... ..... ...Applicant V/s The State of Maharashtra ..... ..... ..Respondent. Mr.Santosh Patil & Vikas Shivarkar, Adv. for the applicant. Mrs.P.P.Shinde, APP for the Respondent. CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 14th Sept., 2009. PC: Heard. The applicant is apprehending arrest in CR No.48/09 for the offences punishable under sections 379, 414, 420 read with section 34 of IPC. Prior to the filing of present application in this Court the applicant has moved the Sessions Judge by similar application under section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code. The Sessions Judge had directed the present applicant to remain present at the time of hearing of the anticipatory bail application on 22.7.09. On 22.7.09 the present applicant did not appear before the Court and hence the matter was adjourned to 29.7.09. The applicant has not attended the Court on 29.7.09 and hence ultimately the application was listed on 12.8.09. However again on 12.8.09 the applicant did not appear and hence his application came to be dismissed without touching the merit of the matter. Perused the order dated 12.8.09. No fault can be found with the said order. 2. The applicant has filed an affidavit in this Court where in it is stated that the advocate for the applicant had not intimated the order 1 passed by the Sessions Judge directing him to remain present on 22.7.09 and hence he could not attend the Court on 22.7.09. It is then stated that advocate intimated the present applicant about next date being 29.7.09 and the direction issued to the applicant to remain present at the time of hearing of the application. He could not remain present on the said date for the reason that he was denied leave by managing director. The reason put forth by the applicant for his non appearance in the Court on 29.7.09 cannot be treated as proper cause for not remaining present in the Court. However learned counsel for the applicant makes a limited request and seeks permission to move yet another application under section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code before the Sessions Court as the earlier application has not been decided on merit. Learned counsel has assured this Court that the applicant would remain present before the Sessions Judge as and when the application would be taken up for hearing. In that view of the matter applicant is granted permission to move fresh application under section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code before the Sessions Judge. The undertaking given by the learned counsel for the applicant is accepted to the effect that the applicant shall remain present before the Sessions Judge at the time of hearing of the application. In the event if the applicant remains present before the Sessions Judge at the time of hearing of application which he proposed to file under section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code the Sessions Judge shall decide the application on merit. Application stands disposed of. 14.9.2009. 2