PRINGE DANDONA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr.Sabnis for the applicant, Mr. Tulpule, PP, for the Respondent No.1/State and Mr.Kalambukadan for Respondent No.2. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Mr.Tulpule, Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the State and Mr.Kalambukadan for respondent no.2 waive service.

(2.) THIS Revision Application has been filed challenging the order dated 8th October, 1996, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Bombay City Civil Court and Sessions Judge, Gr. Bombay, withdrawing the anticipatory bail application no.1382 of 1996 from the court of Addl.Sessions Judge Shri P.M.Joshi and fixing it for hearing before himself.

(3.) IN the meantime, the respondent no.2 filed an application on 4/10/96 before the learned Principal Judge, Bombay City Civil Court and Sessions Judge, Gr.Bombay, seeking trans-fer of the anticipatory bail application no.1382/96 to any other judge on the ground that the learned Addl.Sessions Judge before whom the matter was pending had granted ad-interim anticipatory bail and had adjourned the matter from time to time. The allegation was that the frequent adjournments were given in callous manner. In the said application it is further stated that he has nothing personal against the learned Addl.Sessions Judge. He further stated in the said application that court's attitude was callous in adjourning the matter indefi-nitely after having given the accused protection of interim bail which was unjustifiable.