The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for appropriate directions to ensure that the accused's right to seek anticipatory bail is not frustrated when the application is rejected and the accused is directed to remain present before the Sessions Court.

JUDGMENT

MANISH PITALE, J. - Heard finally.

2. What is the fate of an accused in the State of Maharashtra who is directed to remain present in the Sessions Court pursuant to a direction under Section 438(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) and his application for anticipatory bail is rejected Is he not exposed to immediate arrest, as the interim protection operating during pendency of the application vanishes with the dismissal of the application Is he then not deprived of opportunity to move the High Court for grant of anticipatory bail by invoking the concurrent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. These are the questions that fall for consideration in the present application.

3. The applicant before this Court contends that appropriate directions are required from this Court in the context of Section 438(4) of the Cr.P.C., Maharashtra Amendment, so as to ensure that the very remedy of prearrest bail or anticipatory bail is not frustrated when the Sessions Court directs the accused to remain present under the said provision at the time of final hearing of the application for anticipatory bail. The contention is that when the presence of the accused is insisted upon under Section 438(4) of Cr.P.C., in the eventuality of the application for anticipatory bail being rejected, interim protection needs to be extended for a reasonable time, so that the accused is not deprived of the opportunity to knock the doors of the High Court to seek anticipatory bail, as the High Court exercises concurrent jurisdiction in the matter. The submission is that in the absence of any such direction, the moment an anticipatory bail application of an accused is rejected and the applicant (accused) is obliged to remain present before the Sessions Court pursuant to direction under Section 438(4) of Cr.P.C., there is every possibility of the Investigating Officer arresting the accused then and there, as a result of which, the accused would stand deprived of approaching the High Court, thereby frustrating the very remedy available under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

4. The applicant before this Court is a Nero Surgeon, practicing since 1999, who has worked as a Lecturer in Sion Hospital at Mumbai and who has been instrumental in establishing the Neuro Science Department of a Super Specialty Hospital at Nagpur. The complainant and the applicant are the Directors of a company operating the said Hospital and the complainant has lodged a criminal complaint, due to disputes that have arisen, bearing Crime No. 77/2021 against the applicant for offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 66-C of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

5. The applicant filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court, wherein on 22/02/2021, ad-interim protection was granted in favour of the applicant and he was told to co-operate with the investigation. Upon notice being issued in the said application, the Public Prosecutor appeared in the matter and a counsel also represented the complainant to assist the Prosecutor. The applicant states that the counsel representing the complainant applied before the Public Prosecutor, seeking a direction for personal presence of the applicant at the time of final hearing of the anticipatory bail application. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer and the Prosecutor moved applications seeking presence of the applicant in the Court at the time of final hearing of the anticipatory bail application. On 05/03/2021, the Court of Additional Sessions Judge -6, Nagpur, allowed the applications and directed the applicant to remain present in the Court at the time of final hearing of the application for anticipatory bail.

6. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant filed the present application, wherein this Court passed an order on 09/03/2021, admitting the application and recorded the aforesaid contentions raised in the matt