(Order below Exh.13) A.B.A.No.1125/2022 IIN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, NASHIK AT NASHIK ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1125 OF 2022

Dr.Kishorprasad Ramprasad Shreevas ]
age – 61 yrs., Occu – retired, ]
r/o. Shree Vyankatesh, Plot No.19, ]
Mauli Nagar, Pathardi, Nashik ] .. Applicant / accused

V/s.

The State of Maharashtra ] Through– P.I. Nashik Taluka Police ] Station ] ..Respondent/prosecution

Advocate Shri.Satish Wani for the applicant/accused.

APP Shri.Kapse for the State.

ORDER BELOW EXH.13

1.This is an application to stay the order passed by the Court thereby rejecting Anticipatory Bail Application no.1125/2022 to challenge the order before Hon’ble High Court. It is submitted by Adv.Mr.Satish Wani that applicant intends to challenge the order before Hon’ble High Court hence order passed yesterday be stayed for 15 days.

2.Learned APP Shri.Kapse objected by filing say. It is stated that anticipatory bail application is rejected on merit only by hearing both sides.

3.I have heard both side at considerable length. I would like to law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in Dr. Sameer Narayanrao Paltewar vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through P.S.O. Police Station, Sitabuldi, Nagpur, dated 21.08.2021 wherein our Hon’ble High Court has held in para 31,

“iii) If the Sessions Court rejects the application for anticipatory bail upon final hearing and the
accused is present before the Sessions Court in pursuance of directions given under Section
438(4) of the Cr.P.C. (Maharashtra Amendment), the Court shall extend the interim protection operating in favour of the accused for a minimum period of three working days, on the same conditions on which interim protection was granted during pendency of the application for anticipatory bail or on such
further conditions as the Sessions Court may deem fit, in the interest of justice.”

4.In this particular case “Accused is not present before the court”. Whereas in the cited case it was the process under Section 438(4) of the Cr.P.C. which is not applied in this case before this court. Whereas the offence is serious one and already the application is decided on merit after giving appropriate opportunity to both side.

In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that this application is not tenable for extension of protection for next 15 days in order to challenge the order passed by this Court before Hon’ble High Court. Hence, order –

ORDER

Application is rejected being divide of merits.

Digitally signed by UMESHCHANDRA UMESHCHANDRA JAIKUMAR MORE JAIKUMAR MORE Date: 2022.09.20 16:55:24 +0530 (Dr. U.J. More) Nashik. Additional Sessions Judge Date : 20.09.2022
Nashik.