ORDER 1. LEAVE GRANTED. 2. THE BAIL APPLICATION OF THE APPELLANT WAS REJECTED BY THE SESSIONS COURT IN TERMS OF ORDER DATED 29-9-2003, NOTICING, INTER ALIA, THAT THE HIGH COURT HAD EARLIER REJECTED HIS VARIOUS APPLICATIONS SEEKING BAIL. THE ORDER OF THE SESSIONS COURT WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE THE HIGH COURT. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WHILE DISMISSING THE APPELLANTS APPLICATION, THE HIGH COURT HAS RIGHTLY OBSERVED THAT THE TRIAL COURT WOULD DETERMINE WHETHER THE TRIAL SHOULD PROCEED OR NOT. IN CASE, THE APPELLANT IS LUNATIC, THE PROCEDURE AS LAID DOWN IN CHAPTER 25 CRPC HAS TO BE FOLLOWED. IT WOULD BE FOR THE APPELLANT TO MAKE AN APPROPRIATE MOTION BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT. ON SUCH A MOTION BEING MADE, THE MATTER WOULD BE DECIDED, KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF THE SAID CHAPTER OF CRPC AND, OF COURSE, IF THE TRIAL COURT COMES TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE APPELLANT IS INSANE, THE ORDER IN TERMS OF SECTION 330 CRPC WOULD BE PASSED, WITHOUT BEING INFLUENCED BY THE EARLIER REJECTION OF THE BAIL APPLICATIONS. 3. THE APPEAL IS DISPOSED OF ACCORDINGLY.