JUDGMENT : Pankaj Bhandari, J. 1. Petitioner has preferred this misc. petition for setting aside the order dated 10.7.2018 and for issuing appropriate directions to ensure fair trial. 2. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the CBI. 3. Counsel for the petitioner does not want to press the prayer for directions to ensure fair trial. 4. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was C.E.O. of the company Ziqitza Healthcare Ltd. She surrendered before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (CBI Cases) Jaipur District, on 10.7.2018 and moved a bail application. Trial Court instead of deciding the bail application on the same day posted the matter on the next day on the ground that Special Public Prosecutor appointed by CBI, is not available. 5. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was holding a very respectable position in the company and suffered severe setback as she was confined to judicial custody for no fault of her. It is contended that the action of the Court below in not deciding the bail application on the same day because Special Public Prosecutor appointed by CBI was not present can not be a ground for denying bail to the petitioner. It is contended that the act cannot be undone but the court below should be cautioned to remain careful when dealing with such type of cases. 6. It is also contended that the trial court itself realized its mistake and while granting bail it observed that: ^^lhchvkbZ dks ;g vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd og izdj.k esa ftl fnu tks Hkh dk;Zokgh gks] mlh fnu vius vfHk;kstu vf/kdkjh dks mDr dk;Zokgh es 'kkfey gksus ds fy, mifLFkr j[ks] vU;Fkk mldh vuqifLFkfr esa izHkkoh dk;Zokgh dj nh tkosxh ftlds fy, og ftEesnkj jgsaxs] D;ksfd lhchvkbZ dh otg ls eqyftek Losrk eaxy dks bl U;k;ky; }kjk ,d fnu U;kf;d vfHkj{kk esa Hkstk x;k gSA^^ 7. I have considered the contentions. 8. The court below clearly erred in adjourning the case when the counsel for CBI was present before the court. In bail matters, special provisions have been made to ensure that a person under age of 16, a woman or a sick person is not kept in custody where such person is not a previous convict. 9. 8. The court below clearly erred in adjourning the case when the counsel for CBI was present before the court. In bail matters, special provisions have been made to ensure that a person under age of 16, a woman or a sick person is not kept in custody where such person is not a previous convict. 9. It appears that the Court realized its mistake and while granting bail to the petitioner and observed that the petitioner had to retain in custody due to absence of counsel. This Court is also of the view that the Court below erred in not deciding the application when counsel for the CBI was present. Court should have directed the CBI counsel to argue the case and erred in adjourning the case only on the ground that a special public prosecutor has been appointed. Looking to the position the petitioner was holding, the court below could have granted an interim bail for a period of one day, if time was sought by the prosecuting agency. 10. The misc. petition is accordingly disposed with the directions to the court below not to adjourn the bail applications on account of absence of State counsel. 11. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit a copy of this order to the concerned Magistrate.