JUDGMENT V.K. Gupta, C.J.—Reply has been filed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The only ground upon which the petitioners bail application has been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, vide the impugned order dated 13th June, 2005 is that the applicant was not present in the Court on that date. Vide order dated 23rd June, 2005 I had summoned the original record of the Sessions Court, which has been received. The bail application was filed before the learned Sessions Judge on 9.6.2005, on which date the following order was passed:— "It be checked and registered. Notice of this application has been issued today in the court of Shri Satish Kaushal, P.P. for the State. For filing reply and consideration on 13.6.2005." As the matter was directed to be listed on 13th June, 2005, the following order was passed by the learned Sessions Judge on 13th June, 2005:— "Report filed. As the applicant is not present in the Court, so, the application in hand is dismissed. Be consigned to records." 4. It is the aforesaid order, which is under challenge in this case. A combined reading of both the orders clearly suggests that at no stage prior to 13th June, 2005 had the learned Sessions Judge directed for the personal appearance of the petitioner in the Court. In the absence of such a specific direction, dismissing the bail application only on the ground of the non-appearance of the bail applicant was neither justified nor warranted. I have therefore, no hesitation in saying and holding that to that extent the learned Court below misdirected itself because it was not open to the learned Sessions Judge to have dismissed the bail application only on the ground of non-appearance of the bail applicant since at no point of time prior to the passing of the impugned order had the learned Sessions Judge passed any order or issued any direction for the personal appearance of the bail applicant. 5. The learned Advocate General has drawn my attention to sub-section (1-B) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This new sub-section was introduced/added through the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005. 5. The learned Advocate General has drawn my attention to sub-section (1-B) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This new sub-section was introduced/added through the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005. It reads thus:— "(1-B) The presence of the applicant seeking anticipatory bail shall be obligatory at the time of final hearing of the application and passing of final order by the Court, if on an application made to it by the Public Prosecutor, the Court considers such presence necessary in the interest of justice." 6. The aforesaid sub-section (1-B) cannot be held applicable to the facts of the present case because, as noticed above, no specific order had been passed by the learned Sessions Court before 13th June, 2005 directing the personal appearance of the bail applicant. In the absence of such a specific order passed earlier, the bail application could not be dismissed on account of non-appearance of the bail applicant. Undoubtedly if any such direction had been issued and had the bail applicant not cared to appear personally despite such a direction it could have been open to the learned Court below to have dismissed the bail application on the ground of non-appearance of bail applicant. Even otherwise sub-section 1-B (supra) also is not attracted in the present case because admittedly and undoubtedly no application had been made by the Public Prosecutor in the case before the learned Court below to the effect that the presence of the bail applicant being necessary in the interest of justice, order ought to have been passed by the Court below directing his personal appearance in the Court. By its plain reading subsection 1-B (supra) is attracted only when upon an application made by the Public Prosecutor the Court passes a specific order about the presence of the bail applicant at the stage of final hearing of the anticipatory bail application. 7. Even though my attention was invited to sub-section 1-B (supra) by the learned Advocate General I do wish to very clearly make a categorical observation that even without the aid or applicability of sub-section 1-B, and at a point of time when this sub-section was not even on the statute book, if in the facts and circumstances of the case the Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 438, Cr.RC. ever felt that in the course of adjudication of a bail application pending before it or at any subsequent stage of proceedings of such bail application, till the final hearing whereof, the presence of the bail applicant is necessary, it can always order and direct the personal appearance of the bail applicant and if such an order is passed it becomes the duty of the bail applicant to present himself before the Court and if despite such order the bail applicant does not appear, it would be well within the jurisdiction of the Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 438, Cr.RC. to dismiss the bail application on the ground of non-appearance of the bail applicant. But as noticed earlier, in this case neither sub-section 1-B is held applicable nor was any order passed or direction issued by the learned Sessions Judge for the personal appearance of the bail applicant and, therefore, on both the counts the impugned order being bad in law is hereby set aside. 8. The anticipatory bail application consequently is revived and restored to the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla. The learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, is directed to proceed ahead with the consideration and disposal of the bail application on its merits and in accordance with law. 9. The parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the learned Sessions Judge on 6th July, 2005. Petition allowed. -