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