B. J. SHETHNA, J. ( 1 ) RULE. Mr. R. C. Kodekar, Ld. APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State. ( 2 ) THE applicant has prayed for temporary bail for a period of 20 days but at the time of arguments, Ld. Counsel Shri Parekh submitted that he does not want temporary bail and he wants the applicant-accused to be taken in hospital of his choice for proper treatment and for that, the applicant-accused be taken to the doctor under police escort at his cost. ( 3 ) THERE is no question of granting such request as no such prayer was made by the applicant-accused in his application. The only prayer made in the application is that he may be taken at Bombay Hospital of Dr. Chandolkar. From the impugned order passed by the Learned Judge rejecting his application for temporary bail, it appears that the Learned Judge has observed that as and when the applicant had real problems then the Jail Authority may shift him to the Government Hospital either at Jamnagar or Ahmedabad. ( 4 ) THE present applicant-accused was absconding in a serious offence of murder under Section 302 IPC registered against him. Presently, he is facing serious charges under the Arms Act. No case is made out to give special treatment to him to shift him to Mumbai with police escort when at present in the State, the police is finding it difficult to control the situation. ( 5 ) BEFORE parting, I may state that when a specific question was put to Mr. Parekh as to whether the applicant had stated about his illness in his regular bail application No. 5694 of 2001 filed before this Court then he pleaded ignorance by saying that some other counsel had filed that application. The papers of that application were tagged alongwith this application and having carefully gone through the averments made in that application for regular bail, it appears that nowhere the applicant has stated that he was suffering from serious illness. That bail application was rejected by this Court (Coram: A. L. Dave, J) on 4th and 5th of September, 2001. From the record of that application, it also appears that the applicant-accused had earlier approached the Honourable Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition No. 7009 of 2001. The same was dismissed by the Honourable Supreme Court on 11. 1. 2002. From the record of that application, it also appears that the applicant-accused had earlier approached the Honourable Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition No. 7009 of 2001. The same was dismissed by the Honourable Supreme Court on 11. 1. 2002. It is only after that the present applicant initially filed temporary bail application, first before the Sessions Court and after it was rejected on 11. 3. 2002, he has approached this Court by way of this petition. It appears that any how the accused wants to come out from jail and therefore, such application is filed. Before parting, I must also state that this is not the only case. On almost every day atleast 2 or 3 such type of temporary bail applications are filed by the accused seeking temporary bail on the ground of their own sickness or so-called sickness of their relatives. In most of the cases, it is noticed that complaints about such type of nature are made only after they are arrested. Under the circumstances, the accused cannot be allowed to misuse the process of law by seeking either temporary bail or such type of unusual request to present himself before the doctor of his choice under police escort. ( 6 ) IN view of the above, this petition fails and is rejected. Rule discharged. .