Yewale’s lawyer Harshad Nimbalkar had contended that an interim protection was earlier granted to his client and that if the period was not extended, ‘the purpose of anticipatory bail will become infructuous.’ The defence also submitted that the grant of such protection was a discretionary power of the court.District govt pleader Pramod Bombatkar countered by submitting that the application was moved after the court had already rejected Yeole’s anticipatory bail plea on Monday. Bombatkar cited a 2005 Supreme Court ruling and submitted that the court could not grant an extension of time or protection, after the rejection of anticipatory bail.The court referred to the SC ruling and said, “This court cannot extend interim protection, in an application for anticipatory bail, till approaching higher court when finally this court has rejected the prayer for pre-arrest protection.” It further noted, “It is a settled principle of law that any interim order gets merged in the final order.”
