APPLN/4700/2008 of JANG BAHADAR SINGH GUJRAL Vs THE UNION OF INDIA AND ANR on 31 December 2008

1. On 24[th] December, 2008 the Sessions Court passed anorder extending the interim anticipatory bail granted to theapplicant by this court. At the end of the order, there is anote directing the applicant to remain present before the Sessions Court on 6[th] January, 2009 without fail. The presentCriminal application is filed taking objection only to thenote. It is submitted that such an direction could not havebeen given by the Sessions Court without a specific applicationmade from the prosecution. Mr.Warunjikar submits that Section438 (1-B) Cr.P.C. requires that an application is made by theprosecution for the purpose. Mr.Warunjikar also submits thatif on the adjourned date the court is not inclined to grantanticipatory bail to the applicant and if he is arrested onthat day, he will not be in a position to challenge the orderpassed on the application.

2. I find no substance in the submission that unless therethe is a specific application in writing made by PublicProsecutor the court is powerless in issuing directions forsecuring presence of the applicant seeking anticipatory bail atthe time of final hearing of the application. The provisionof sub-section (1-B) would only be an enabling provision forthe prosecution and no restraint upon the court can be readinto the provision. Hence, no ad-interim reliefs.Mr.Warunjikar agrees that with refusal of the ad-interimreliefs, nothing remains to be considered in the CriminalApplication. The same is therefore finally disposed off.

applicant be granted protection for some period from his arrestafter the date 6[th] January, 2009. Since, the application foranticipatory bail is pending for consideration of the SessionsCourt, the application is rejected.

[JUDGE]