Dear Suchitra, Jithendra is correct, I just received a copy of the Bomby High Court, from a friend, where the Bombay High Court granted Anticipatory Bail to one Sashikant, who was in Switzerland. I was thinking of this issue, as if the accused appears before the Court it wil amount to surrender in the court, as the words in section 437 CrPc used the word appears. I remember one case way back in 1996 where I forced my client to apear before the court and asked the bail under section 437 CrPc and bail was granted by the Mgistrate. So the correct positio of law wil be that at the time of interim A/B accused need not appear but in final hearing accused should be present. Thank you for the contributions.
S.438 (1B) Cr.P.C. 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.
As per Maharashtra act 24 of 1993 the said provision is in force w.e.f. 28.7.1993. Since I was concerned with Maharashtra, my immediate response as above. However I will verify and confirm whether Central enactment has come into force or not.