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:-

"438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest.-(1) When any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail, and that Court may after taking into consideration, inter alia, the following factors:-

(i) the nature and gravity or seriousness of the accusation as apprehended by the applicant;

(ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has, on conviction by a Court, previously undergone imprisonment for a term in respect of any cognizable offence;

(iii) the likely object of the accusation to humiliate or malign the reputation of the applicant by having him so arrested; and

(iv) the possibility of the applicant, if granted anticipatory bail, fleeing from justice, either reject the application forthwith or issue an interim order for the grant of anticipatory bail;

Provided that, where the High Court, or as the case may be, the Court of Session has not passed any interim order under this sub-section or has rejected the application for grant of anticipatory bail, it shall be open to an officer in charge of a police station to arrest, without warrant the applicant on the basis of the accusation apprehended in such application.

(2) Where the High Court, or as the case may be, the Court of Session, considers it expedient to issue an interim order to grant anticipatory bail under sub-section (1) the Court shall indicate therein the date on which the application for grant of anticipatory bail shall be finally heard for passing an order thereon, as the Court may deem fit; and if the Court passes any order granting anticipatory bail, such order shall include, inter alia, the following conditions, namely :-

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii) that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the accusation against him so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; and

(iv) such other conditions as may be imposed under sub-section (3) of section 437 as if the bail was granted under that section.

(3) Where the Court grants an interim order under sub-section (1), it shall forthwith cause a notice, being not less than