ORDER 1. HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES. 2. LEAVE GRANTED. 3. WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO, INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT D REJECTING THE PRAYER FOR BAIL IN THIS CASE, BY ORDER DATED 2-12-2005, NOTICE WAS ISSUED LIMITED TO .THE APPLICATION FOR INTERIM BAIL. TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE GROUNDS INDICATED WHILE SEEKING INTERIM BAIL, WE DIRECT AS FOLLOWS: (A) THE APPELLANT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO DELHI TO SEE HIS AILING FATHER ACCOMPANIED BY TWO RESPONSIBLE POLICE OFFICERS OF THE STATE/CEI, AS THE CASE MAY BE. (B) WE ARE TOLD THAT THE TRIAL HAS BEEN FIXED FROM 13-12-2005 TO 31-12-2005 PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE HIGH COURT. WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO DISTURB THE SCHEDULE FIXED BY THE HIGH COURT. THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT SHALL GO BACK FROM DELHI TO BE PRESENT DURING THE TRIAL BEFORE 13-12-2005. THE APPELLANT SHALL NOT DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY TAMPER WITH THE EVIDENCE IN ANY MANNER BY INFLUENCING/GAINING OVER THE WITNESSES IN THE CASE. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE APPELLANT IS WILLING TO BEAR THE COSTS OF HIS JOURNEY TO DELHI ALONG WITH POLICE OFFICIALS BY FLIGHT TOMORROW. IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT THE APPELLANT SHALL NOT SEEK ADJOURNMENTS ON THE GROUND THAT HE IS NOT READY FOR THE TRIAL AS HE IS SCHEDULED TO BE IN DELHI TO MEET HIS AILING FATHER. THE VISITING HOURS OF THE HOSPITAL WHERE HIS FATHER IS UNDERGOING TREATMENT UNLESS RELAXED BY THE HOSPITAL, SHALL BE ADHERED TO WHEN THE APPELLANT MEETS HIS AILING FATHER. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT IS BEING ACCOMPANIED BY TWO POLICE OFFICERS, FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES, HE SHALL BE IN CUSTODY OF THE POLICE OFFICERS. 4. THE APPEAL IS DISPOSED OF ACCORDINGLY.