ORDER : Issue notice. 2. On our directions, learned counsel Mr. Kuldeep Singh appears for the State of Punjab-respondent and accepts the notice. 3. Leave granted. 4. We have heard the matter finally at this stage. 5. The appellant is charged for the offences punishable under Sections 177, 199, 200, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and he was taken into custody and arrested. The appellant moved a bail application to the Sessions Court. This bail application was, however, rejected by the Sessions Court. Aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Court, the appellant approached the High Court. During the pendency of the proceedings in the High Court, vide order dated 30.11.2015, the High Court had granted the appellant interim bail subject to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana. This order reads as under: "Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in CRM-M-33634 of 2015, petitioner has been ordered to be released on interim bail as the matter was sent to Mediation and Conciliation Centre at the request of the counsel for the complainant. Accordingly, list again on 09.02.2016. In the meantime, petitioner be admitted to interim bail subject to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana." 6. It appears that the mediation remained unsuccessful. Thereafter when the matter came up for arguments on regular bail on 23.02.2016, the High Court passed the impugned order observing that since the bail application of the appellant is to be heard, it cannot be done unless the appellant is in custody and, therefore, he is directed to surrender before the Illaqa Magistrate on or before 27.02.2016 and the High Court has fixed 02.03.2016 as next date of hearing. 7. We are not in conformity with the observations of the High Court that if the regular bail is to be considered, the appellant has to necessarily surrender himself and that the bail application cannot be heard if the appellant is on interim bail. The High Court had itself granted interim bail to the appellant. From the order granting interim bail, it is clear that this interim bail was not for any specific period. If the High Court wanted to cancel the interim bail for some justifiable reasons, that course of action was opened to it. However, that has not been done. The High Court had itself granted interim bail to the appellant. From the order granting interim bail, it is clear that this interim bail was not for any specific period. If the High Court wanted to cancel the interim bail for some justifiable reasons, that course of action was opened to it. However, that has not been done. On the other hand, the appellant is directed to surrender only because of the reason that unless it is done his bail application would not be heard. This approach of the High Court cannot be countenanced. 8. We, accordingly, set aside the order of the High Court. The High Court shall hear the bail application on 02.03.2016 the date already fixed, without forcing the appellant to surrender. The appeal stands allowed in the aforestated terms.