ASHIK RAMESHCHANDRA SHAH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants and the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

(2.) On 24/11/2009, Sessions Court directed the applicants to remain present before the Court on 27/11/2009. However, oral prayer made by the applicants for protection from arrest till 27/11/2009 was rejected. On 25/11/ 2009, application for anticipatory bail was rejected in view of application for withdrawal of the anticipatory bail application filed by the applicants vide Exhibit-8. Applicants, therefore, apprehending arrest by the police were constrained to file this application in this Court.

(3.) An interesting question, therefore, which has been raised before this Court is whether power of the Sessions Court in Maharashtra to direct the applicant - accused to remain present can be exercised without taking into consideration the application for interim protection and the manner, method and circumstances in which the said power has to be exercised. Before taking into consideration the facts of the present case, therefore, it would be relevant to take into consideration the Maharashtra Amendment. In 1993, the State Government was pleased to amend section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is a Central Act and the provisions viz. sub-sections (3) and (4) were inserted. The amended section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code reads as under :-