1. The learned Sessions Judge of Greater Mumbai, pending hearing of Anticipatory Bail Application before it, refused to grant interim protection by its order dated 19th April, 2014. Hence, this application is preferred seeking interim bail, till the final decision on the Anticipatory Bail Application 754 of 2014, which is pending before the learned Sessions Judge.

2. In the course of submissions, the following proposition was made:

“When an application for anticipatory bail under section 438 is preferred, the Sessions Court or the High Court shall either reject the said application forthwith or issue an interim order in respect of anticipatory bail. No third option is open to the Court to adjourn the application without granting any interim relief to the applicant/accused”.

3. This proposition or the interpretation of section 438 of the Code by the learned Counsel for the applicants gave rise to the question of law as follows:

Whether the Sessions Court or the High Court, while entertaining an application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has a power to adjourn the said application without granting interim protection in favour