SHIVRAJ KASHINATHAPPA GANDGE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By these applications, the applicant has challenged the orders dated 18.05.2010, passed below Exhibit10 in Criminal Misc. Application No.47/10 and below Exhibit8 in Criminal Misc. Application No.49/10 on the file of Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Latur, by which the applications moved by the prosecution to keep the applicant present at the time of hearing of anticipatory bail applications moved by him, without granting interim relief, came to be allowed.

(2.) Heard Counsel for the applicant in both these applications. Today, the applicant is present before the Court as per the directions of this Court. Also heard learned A.P.P. for RespondentState.

(3.) During the course of submissions across the bar, it is the only grievance put forth by the Counsel for the applicant that as no interim protection was granted in favour of the applicant, the Court cannot insist presence of applicant at the time of hearing of anticipatory bail applications, even though there is a State amendment to Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which speaks that on the application of the prosecution, if the presence of the applicant - alleged accused is required at the time of hearing of anticipatory bail application, the Court to pass necessary order to that effect and secure presence of the applicantaccused at the time of hearing of the anticipatory bail application. Section 438(4), as per the State amendment, reads as follows: