MANU/GJ/1712/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

Criminal Revision Application No. 543 of 2011
Decided On: 26.12.2011
Appellants: Ashok Govindram Hurra
Vs.
Respondent: State of Gujarat and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Z.K. Saiyed, J.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Yatin Oza for Renu D. Chaudhary
For Respondents/Defendant: H.L. Jani, Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
Z.K. Saiyed, J.
1. This application is preferred by the applicant - original complainant with a prayer
to quash and set aside order dated 29.11.2011 passed in Criminal Misc. Application
No. 1303 of 2011 by the learned Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, in not affording right
to be heard to the complainant.
Present applicant has made four issues of law which are as under:
(A) Whether aggrieved complainant has locus standi to canvass submission
during the hearing of application for anticipatory bail by the accused person
because investigation is at preliminary stage and investigation agency is not
fully aware of the background and circumstances?
(B) Whether as is permitting in the case of cancellation of anticipatory bail,
complainant has locus standi to point out incorrectness in the order of
granting anticipatory bail?
(C) Whether in peculiar facts when accused chooses to suppress vital facts
and documents in application for anticipatory bail, is it not just, fair and
equitable to give opportunity to complainant to present the totality of
suppressed facts, circumstances and background of the accused persons
which are exclusively within the knowledge of the complainant?
(D) Whether it is in public interest to do complete justice to afford right to be
heard to complainant in view of the glaring reality of practical life that often
prosecution either due to lack of time or lack of incentive or due to
negligence or sometimes in collusion with the accused does not properly
point out to the Court all the relevant material that needs to be projected
resulting into multiplicity of litigations at a subsequent point of time wherein
it is seen that all sorts of allegations are made, and a Court is often required
to rehear and review the earlier order, but then often times the damage
cannot be undone?

13-09-2021 (Page 1 of 11) www.manupatra.com Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University
 2 . Learned senior advocate Mr. Yatin Oza for Ms. Renu Chaudhary for the applicant
submitted that learned Sessions Judge has wrongly observed in his order below
Exhibit 9 that present applicant has no right to oppose the anticipatory bail
application, which is pending before that Court. He also submitted that in view of the
observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court in various
decisions, present applicant is entitled to oppose the application for anticipatory bail
and therefore, learned Sessions Judge has committed grave error. He also submitted
that learned Sessions Judge ought to have given permission to the present applicant
to oppose the application for anticipatory bail by filing written statement or
documentary evidence for opposing the application.
3. Mr. Yatin Oza, learned senior advocate has contented that in light of the provisions
of Section 24(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, present applicant has right to
appear to oppose the bail application. He read Section 24(8) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and submitted that in this Section, the Court may permit to victim to
engage the advocate of his choice to assist the prosecution under this Sub-section.
4. Learned senior advocate Mr. Oza produced the definition of term "Assist" as under:
"Source : http//dictionary.com
Assist : Contribute strength or means to : cooperate effectively with
Auxillary : functioning in a support capacity
Source : www.freedictionary.com
assistance - the activity of contributing to the fulfillment of a need or
furtherance of an effort or purpose; "he gave me an assist with the
housework."
5 . He also produced the meaning of "Assist" from Assist Law & Legal Definition,
which is as under:
"Assist means to help; aid; succor; lend countenance or encouragement to;
or to participate in as an auxiliary. Negusie V. Holder 129, S Ct. 1159, 1179
(U.S. 2009)"
6. He also submitted that the meaning of "Assist" is the activity of contributing to the
fulfillment of a need or furtherance of an effort.
7. Mr. Yatin Oza, learned senior advocate submitted that in case of Puran etc. etc. v.
Rambilas & Anr. etc. etc. reported in Manupatra (MANU/SC/0326/2001) and
submitted that in para 15, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
"This Court held that the frame of sub-section (2) of Section 439 indicates
that it is a power conferred on the Court mentioned therein. It was held that
there was nothing to indicate that the said power can be exercised only if the
State or investigating agency or a Public Prosecutor moves by a petition. It
was held that the power so vested in the High Court can be invoked either by
the State or by any aggrieved party. It was held that, therefore, any member
of the public, whether he belongs to any particular profession or otherwise
could move the High Court to remind it of the need to exercise its power suo
motu. It was held that there was no barrier either in Section 439 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, or in any other law which inhibits a person from

13-09-2021 (Page 2 of 11) www.manupatra.com Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University
 moving the High Court considered that there was no need to cancel the bail
then it could dismiss the petition. It was held that it was always open to the
High Court to cancel the bail if it felt that there were sufficient enough
reasons for doing so."
8. Learned advocate Mr. Oza further submitted that the meaning of "Assist" is that it
is privilege of the present applicant to appear before the lower Court and
independently oppose the anticipatory bail application which is filed by the accused.
9. Learned senior advocate Mr. Yatin Oza relied upon the case of Vinay Poddar v. The
State of Maharashtra reported in Manupatra (MANU/MH/1433/2008). He read paras 3,
5, 9, 11 and 13 of the said judgment and submitted that victim has right to appear
before the lower Court and oppose the application.
"3. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that there is
no provision in the said Code under which the Sessions Court hearing an
application for anticipatory bail can allow the original Complainant to appear
and to oppose grant of anticipatory bail. He submitted that the Sessions
Court has no power to allow intervention by the complainant/first respondent
in an application for grant of anticipatory bail filed by the accused. He invited
my attention to a decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Smt. Indu Balu
and others v. Delhi Administration and others [MANU/DE/0131/1990 : 1991
Cr.L.J. 1774]. He invited my attention to the reasons recorded by the learned
Sessions Judge. He submitted that the decision of the Apex Court in the case
of J.K. International v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Others
[MANU/SC/0126/2001 : 2001 SCC Criminal 547] is in the context of the
exercise of power by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India or section 482 of the said Code. He submitted that when a question
arises before a High Court whether a criminal proceeding should be quashed,
the law laid down by the Apex Court is that the Complainant should be heard.
He submitted that the decision of the Apex Court is in the context of the
proceedings filed before the High Court for quashing of a criminal case and
the ratio of the decision will have no application in a case where intervention
is sought by the Complainant in an application for grant of anticipatory bail.
He pointed out that the reliance placed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge on provisions of section 301 of the said Code is totally misplaced as
the said provision will have application to an inquiry, trial or appeal under
the said Code. He submitted that no such inquiry or trial is contemplated at
the hearing of the application for anticipatory bail. He submitted that the said
section will have no application to an application for anticipatory bail. He
further submitted that the complainant cannot rely upon section 302 of the
said Code as the same is applicable to an inquiry or trial before a Magistrate.
His submission is that in any event, the concept of inquiry as defined under
clause (g) of sub-section (2) of the said Code is totally different and the
same will not cover hearing held for the purposes of considering an
application for anticipatory bail.
5 . I have considered the rival submissions. It will be necessary to refer to
the decision of the Apex Court in the case of J.K. International (supra). The
issue before the Apex Court was whether the original complaint/first
informant should be heard by the High Court while considering a prayer for
quashing the criminal proceeding. In paragraph No. 9 of the said decision,
the Apex Court has observed that the scheme envisaged in the said Code

13-09-2021 (Page 3 of 11) www.manupatra.com Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University
 indicates that a person who is aggrieved by the offence committed, is not
altogether wiped out from the scenario of the trial merely because the
investigation was taken over by the Police and the charge-sheet was laid by
them. After referring to the provisions of section 301 in Chapter XXIV of the
said Code, in paragraph No. 10 of the said decision, the Apex Court has held
thus:-
"10. The said provision falls within the Chapter titled "General
Provisions as to Inquiries and Trials". When such a role is permitted
to be played by a private person, though it is a limited role, even in
the Sessions Court, that is enough to show that the private person, if
he is aggrieved, is not wiped off from the proceedings in the criminal
court merely because the case was charge-sheeted by the police. It
has to be stated further, that the court is given power to permit even
such private person to submit his written arguments in the court
including the Sessions Court. If he submits any such written
arguments the court has a duty to consider such arguments before
taking a decision."
(underlines supplied)
8. It will also be necessary to refer to the decision of this Court in the case
of Chandrakant Chandulal Bhansali (supra). This Court has considered the
question whether the principles applicable for cancellation of regular bail
apply equally even to an application for cancellation of an anticipatory bail.
The learned Judge of this Court has considered the scheme of section 438 of
the said Code. Thus, the issue involved in this application did not specifically
arise before this Court in the said decision. In paragraph No. 8 of the said
decision, the learned Judge has observed that since the complainant was the
aggrieved party, even though it was a State prosecution, it would have been
advisable to issue notice to the complainant before deciding an application
for anticipatory bail. The learned Judge observed that it is more out of
abundant caution than anything else that Courts often observe the procedure
because instances are not wanting where the prosecuting authority either due
to negligence or sometimes in collusion with the accused does not properly
point out to the Court all the relevant material. While dealing with the
consideration of an application for cancellation of anticipatory bail, in
paragraph No. 11 of the said decision, the learned Judge has held thus:-
"Having regard to the circumstances in which anticipatory bail orders
are normally obtained, the grounds on which such orders can be
reviewed would be different to the general principles on which bail
can be cancelled. To my mind, therefore, as indicated earlier,
predominant considerations which would arise while reconsidering
the anticipatory bail order are the following:
a) Whether the prosecution and the complainant were heard
and whether they had a fair opportunity of pointing out to
the Court the grounds, if any, why bail ought not to be
granted.
b) At what stage of the investigation was the order passed
and whether the passing of such an order could have the
object of interfering with impeding or frustrating the

13-09-2021 (Page 4 of 11) www.manupatra.com Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University
 investigation?
c) Whether the considerations on which the bail order was
passed were germane or whether the Court was either
mislead or had overlooked the basic or fundamental aspects
of the case while passing the order."
9 . There is a decision of the Madras High Court in the case of P.S.
Saravanabhavanandam and another (supra) specifically deals with this
aspect. In paragraph No. 13 of the said decision, the Madras High Court has
held in paragraph No. 13, thus:-
"13. There is no provision in the Criminal P.C. which enables a third
party to get himself impleaded in the proceedings before the criminal
court. As already observed, we have only S.301 Cr.P.C. which
enables the private parties to assist the prosecution and also submit
written arguments with the leave of the Court. According to S.301
Cr.P.C., such assistance is to be given at the inquiry, trial or appeal
in a criminal case. The question that arises is whether private parties
can be allowed to intervene in the anticipatory bail petition with a
view to represent matters before the court, when there is no
provision for intervention in the Criminal P.C. By 'intervention' it is
understood that a party who is possession of facts may appear
before the court as an intervener and make his submissions on the
matter in issue. In such cases, such a party is shown as intervener in
the proceedings before the court. When a party cannot be impleaded
in a criminal proceeding, as held by this court, in the decision
referred to above, he cannot be permitted to come in under the guise
of an intervener. But, at the same time bearing in mind the
wholesome observations of the Supreme Court extracted above, the
right of a party to represent matters before the court cannot be
whittled down into a strait jacket formula of locus standi, which is
unknown to criminal jurisprudence. It is open to any party to make
his representations in the bail proceedings pending before this court
before the inquiry or trial starts." (underlines supplied). Thus, the
Madras High Court has recognized the right of the complainant to
make his representation in the proceedings of anticipatory bail. The
said decision is not correctly read by the Delhi High Court in the case
of Smt. Indu Balu (supra).
1 1 . It is true that the provisions of the said Code do not specifically
recognise the right of intervention. However, the role which the first
informant or the complainant can play has been considered by the Apex
Court in the case of J.K. International. In the paragraph 10 of the said
decision, the Apex Court has observed that even before the Sessions Court
the role of a private person who is aggrieved by the offence is not altogether
wiped out merely because the accused was charge sheeted by the Police. The
Apex Court observed that the relevant provision of the said Code permits
written arguments to be filed by a private person before the Sessions Court
and the Court is duty bound to consider the written arguments. The Apex
Court has observed that the aggrieved private person or complainant is not
altogether eclipsed from the scenario when a Criminal Court takes cognizance
of the offence based on the report of the Police. The Apex Court noted the

13-09-2021 (Page 5 of 11) www.manupatra.com Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University
 reality that almost in all such cases, the grievance is of individuals who are
wronged by the accused by committing offences against them.
13. When an application for anticipatory bail is considered, the police may
not place all factual details before the Court as the investigation in most of
such cases is at a preliminary stage. Therefore, some role can be played by
the complainant by pointing out factual aspects. In the circumstances, it is
not possible to hold that the first informant or the complainant cannot be
heard in an application for anticipatory bail. When the complainant appears
before the Court in the course of hearing of an application for grant of
anticipatory bail, the Court is bound to hear him. But the said right cannot be
allowed to be exercised in a manner which will delay the disposal of an
application for anticipatory bail. The delay in disposal of such application
may adversely affect the investigation. Therefore, the right which can be
spelt out in favour of the first informant or the complainant is of making oral
submissions for pointing out the factual aspects of the case during the course
of hearing of an application for anticipatory bail before the Court of Sessions.
The said right is to be exercised by the complainant either by himself or
through his Counsel. This is not to say that the Sessions Court hearing the
application for anticipatory bail is under an obligation to issue notice to the
first informant or the complainant. There is no such requirement of issuing
notice to the first informant or the complainant at the hearing of the
application for anticipatory bail. However, if the complainant or the first
informant appears before the Court, he cannot be denied a right of making
oral submissions either in person or through his Counsel. It must be noted
here that the legal position on this aspect in the case of an application for
regular bail may not be the same."
1 0 . Learned senior advocate Mr. Oza further submitted that in Criminal Misc.
Application No. 1303 of 2011, learned Sessions Judge has passed order on
29.11.2011. Therefore, the applicant approached this Court by way of this application
and this Court has passed order on 9.12.2011. Learned senior advocate submitted
that if the applicant may not oppose the bail application of the accused, then the
learned Sessions Judge will proceed further with the matter. Therefore, the order of
the learned Sessions Judge is required to be dismissed.
11. Learned senior advocate Mr. S.V. Raju for the respondents submitted that the
applicant has no right to oppose the application of bail pending before the learned
Sessions Court. He relied upon the case of Rubabbuddin Shaikh v. Amitbhai
Anichandra Shah decided by this Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 444 of
2010. This Court has observed in para 11 that "Section 24(8) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure in amended form also though gives discretion of the Court to permit the
victim to engage advocate of his choice, same is for the purpose of assisting Public
Prosecutor and not for other purpose."
12. Learned senior advocate Mr. Raju also relied upon the decision in the case of
Usmanbhai Dawoodbhai Memon and others etc. v. State of Gujarat reported
MANU/SC/0560/1988 : AIR 1988 Supreme Court 922 and submitted that Hon'ble
Supreme Court has observed that victim can assist the Public Prosecutor.
1 3 . Learned senior advocate Mr. Raju relied upon the decision in the case of
Makwana Sambhubhai Chothabhai v. State of Gujarat reported in
MANU/GJ/0314/1992 : 1993 (1) GLH 331, wherein this Court has observed in para 5

13-09-2021 (Page 6 of 11) www.manupatra.com Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University
 as under:
"5. It was submitted that, the High Court has no revisional powers against an
order made by the Sessions Court regarding bail since it would be an
interlocutory order. If the bail application made under Section 439 is to be
considered a substantive proceeding which can be finally concluded by an
order made in that application, then such an order would not be an
interlocutory order. The Supreme Court in Amar Nath & Ors v. State of
Haryana & Ors. (reported in MANU/SC/0068/1977 : AIR 1977 SC 2185) in
paragraph 6 of the judgment, while illustrating the orders which may be of
an interlocutory nature, has referred to orders for bail. In Usmanbhai
Dawoodbhai Memon & Ors. v. State of Gujarat (reported in
MANU/SC/0560/1988 : AIR 1988 SC 922), the Supreme Court has, in terms,
held that it cannot be doubted that grant or refusal of bail application is
essentially an interlocutory order and there is no finality to such an order
though an application for bail can always be renewed from time to time. The
decision of the Supreme Court in Amar Nath's case (supra) has been
overruled in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra (reported in
MANU/SC/0103/1977 : AIR 1978 SC 47), in so far as it held that, inherent
powers under Section 439 of the Code would not be available to defeat the
bar contained in Section 397(2) and the Supreme Court, in terms, held that
even assuming that the revisional powers of the High Court were
impermissible, the inherent powers under Section 482 can be invoked. To
this extent, by the later decision of the Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye's
case, which is of a larger bench the statement of law earlier made was
modified. It is, therefore, now well settled that, even if a revision application
does not lie under Section 397(2) of the Code, that would not preclude the
exercise of the inherent powers by the High Court under Section 482 of the
Code. Therefore, a judicial order, which cannot be amenable to revisional
jurisdiction, would still become subject to the scrutiny of the High Court
under Section 482 of the Code in exercise of its inherent powers. In this view
of the matter, an order made by the Sessions Court under Section 439 can be
challenged before the High Court invoking its inherent jurisdiction and if the
High Court finds that in exercising its powers under Section 439, the
Sessions Court has passed an unjust order, the High Court can set it aside
and can grant bail in exercise of its own powers under Section 439(1) of the
Code. Therefore, this Application can be rejected simply on the ground that,
so long as the order of the Sessions Court made under Section 439(1)
governs the field, there is no occasion for invoking the power of the High
Court under the same provision, especially when the order is not even
challenged in this application."
1 4 . Learned senior advocate Mr. Raju further relied upon the case of Varyabhai
Jesangdas Patel v. State of Gujarat and Anr. reported in MANU/GJ/0222/1985 : 1986
GLH 154, wherein this Court has observed that "Right of advocate instructed by a
private person such right is limited to assisting Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public
Prosecutor."
15. He also submitted that the meaning of word "Assist" from the Concise Oxford
Dictionary is "help" (a person, process etc.)
16 Mr. Raju, learned senior advocate further submitted that looking to the provisions
of Section 24(8), the applicant has only right to assist the Public Prosecutor. He

13-09-2021 (Page 7 of 11) www.manupatra.com Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University
 further stated that even this Court has also observed in aforesaid decision and held
that victim has only right to assist the Public Prosecutor. He has prayed to dismiss the
application. Therefore, the present applicant has a right to assist the Public
Prosecutor and he can file written arguments or documentary evidence.
17. Learned APP Mr. Jani for the State drew the attention of this Court to the order
passed by this Court in Criminal Reference No. 3 of 2010 dated 14.12.2010 and
submitted that the Division Bench of this Court has observed that with regard to locus
of the learned advocate for the original complainant and his right to conduct the
proceeding as an advocate even after the death of private complainant would rest on
the interpretation of Section 225 of the Code and the Sessions Court has to maintain
the spirit of Section 225 of the Code and thereafter, has referred the matter to this
Court under Section 395(2) of the Code.
18. Mr. Jani, learned APP has read para 5 of the order and submitted that Section
225 deals with the trial to be conducted by the Public Prosecutor. The said Sections is
under:
"225. Trial to be conducted by Public Prosecutor.
In every trial before a Court of Session, the prosecution shall be conducted
by a Public Prosecutor."
He also submitted that in para 10 of the aforesaid judgment, this Court has observed
that:
"As son as the case is committed to the court of Sessions, as provided in
sec.225 of the Code, the Public Prosecutor shall be incharge of the case. The
only right which a private complainant or his advocate may have would be to
sit by the side and assist the public prosecutor and as best as provided in
sec.301, sub-clause (2), he may submit written arguments if the court
permits at the close of the evidence."
19. He also drew the attention of para 14 of the said order passed by this Court
wherein it is observed that:
"The aforesaid right of the original complainant or an informant to assist the
Public Prosecutor was read as per the above referred decision and thereafter,
as referred to hereinabove, with effect from 31.12.2009, proviso has been
inserted in sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code whereby the Parliament
has expressly provided that the Court may provide the victim to engage an
advocate of his choice to assist the Public Prosecutor."
He also submitted that in para 16 of the said order, this Court has observed that:
"If the Court finds that the Public Prosecutor is not properly discharging the
duty to be performed by him, nothing prevents the Court from exercising its
power to ensure that the proper evidence is placed before the Court and no
mischief is played by the Prosecutor which may frustrate the basic principles
that the real offender must be punished and the innocent persons must be
acquitted. That is the proactive role expected from the Court but not the role
of substituting a lawyer of the original complainant by replacing the Public
Prosecutor while conducting the trial which is neither permissible as per the
provisions of section 225 of the Code nor can be read under section 225 of

13-09-2021 (Page 8 of 11) www.manupatra.com Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University
 the Code."
2 0 . Learned APP Mr. Jani read the order passed by this Court in Criminal Misc.
Application No. 5522 of 2009 dated 10.5.2010, more particularly para 8, wherein this
Court dealt with Section 24(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is under:
Section 24(8)
"24(8) - The Central government or the state Government may
appoint, for the purpose of any case or class of cases, a person who
has been in practice as an advocate for not less than ten years as a
Special Public Prosecutor:
[Provided that the Court may permit the victim to engage an
advocate of the choice to assist the prosecution under this
sub-section]"
Similarly in para 13 of the aforesaid order, this Court has observed:
"As per the provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure the right as existed
to the victim in the trial Court is to assist the Public Prosecutor as per the
provision of Section 24(8) of Cr.P.C."
Learned APP Mr. Jani read para 15 of the said order, which is as under:
"However, it is observed that the applicant - original complainant - victim
shall be at liberty to assist the P.P. at the time of final hearing of the criminal
Appeal No. 1412 of 2009, preferred by the State and shall also be at the
liberty to make submission with the P.P. against the order of acquittal at the
time of final hearing of the appeal."
2 1 . Learned APP also submitted that even the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also
considered said issue in the case of Abhilasha and Another v. State of Rajasthan and
Others reported in (2000) 10 Supreme Court Cases 237. The order passed in the said
matter is as under:
"Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Qamaruddin appearing
for the accused persons and Mr. Jain appearing for the State of Rajasthan.
The sole grievance of petitioners is that though in course of trial several
illegalities are being committed, yet the Public Prosecutor is not taking
appropriate steps and when the High Court had dismissed the same on the
ground of locus. According to the petitioners, who happened to be the wife
and brother of the deceased, there will be gross miscarriage of justice, if the
informants, who are the most aggrieved persons are not permitted to assist
the Public Prosecutor in conducting the trial. It has been held by this Court
that an informant cannot as of a right, claim to pursue the trial in a case of
murder, though he may assist the Public Prosecutor. It is not possible for us
to visualise as to whether in the case in hand, any such assistance is, at all,
required by the Public Prosecutor or not but we are sure that in the event
certain materials are brought to the notice of the Public Prosecutor which will
unravel the truth, the Public Prosecutor will certainly take that into
consideration and act according to law. The informants were aggrieved by
the order granting bail which was granted on 8.1.1998; we are not inclined
to inference with that order of bail at this length of time after a lapse of more

13-09-2021 (Page 9 of 11) www.manupatra.com Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University
 than one year and 10 months. We, therefore, refuse to entertain this SLP for
cancellation of the bail, that was granted. This SLP is disposed of
accordingly."
22. Learned APP Mr. Jani drew the attention towards the meaning of "Assist" from the
Concise Oxford Dictionary also, which is stated in earlier part of this order.
2 3 . Heard both the parties and perused the submissions made by the learned
advocates for the parties. By way of this application, the applicant raised substantial
issues of law that:
(A) Whether aggrieved complainant has locus standi to canvass submission
during the hearing of application for anticipatory bail by the accused person
because investigation is at preliminary stage and investigation agency is not
fully aware of the background and circumstances?
I have perused the decisions cited before me. I have also perused the
provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure and I have perused every corner of
the provisions as well as the decisions produced before this Court, whereby
by various decisions, it has been held that only victim has right to assist the
Public Prosecutor. It is true that the aggrieved complainant has locus standi
but only to assist the Public Prosecutor.
(B) Whether as is permitting in the case of cancellation of anticipatory bail,
complainant has locus standi to point out incorrectness in the order of
granting anticipatory bail?
It is true that in the case of cancellation of anticipatory bail, the victim has
right to file application for cancellation of anticipatory bail before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court.
(C) Whether in peculiar facts when accused chooses to suppress vital facts
and documents in application for anticipatory bail, is it not just, fair and
equitable to give opportunity to complainant to present the totality of
suppressed facts, circumstances and background of the accused persons
which are exclusively within he knowledge of the complainant?
That the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that the
victim has right to furnish any documents or written statement through the
Public Prosecutor and victim can assist the Public Prosecutor in connection of
the said anticipatory bail application or regular bail, which may be filed by
other parties.
(D) Whether it is in public interest to do complete justice to afford right to be
heard to complainant in view of the glaring reality of practical life that often
prosecution either due to lack of time or lack of incentive or due to
negligence or sometimes in collusion with the accused does not properly
point out to the Court all the relevant material that needs to be projected
resulting into multiplicity of litigations at a subsequent point of time wherein
it is seen that all sorts of allegations are made, and a Court is often required
to rehear and review the earlier order, but then often times the damage
cannot be undone?
So far as this question is concerned, the observations made the various

13-09-2021 (Page 10 of 11) www.manupatra.com Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University
 decisions and as per the provisions of law, the victim has right to assist the
Public Prosecutor and therefore, the question regarding interest of public
cannot arise.
24. In view of the above observations, I am of the view that the law is clear about
the right of victim and the victim has right to appear before the Lower Court to assist
the Public Prosecutor and hence, the order dated 29.11.2011 passed in Criminal Misc.
Application No. 1303 of 2011 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 14,
Ahmedabad is hereby confirmed. Present applicant is permitted to move before the
Lower Court with detail arguments or documents to support his version with a view
to oppose the anticipatory bail application before the lower Court. I hope that the
learned Judge will permit the present applicant to file written argument and
documents in support of this version.
25. During the dictation of this order, learned senior advocate Mr. Yatin Oza prays
that the learned Judge may be directed to postpone the hearing of the application, till
next Monday. Mr. Oza, learned senior advocate assures that he will file written
statement or before next Monday.
26. It will be open to the present applicant to pray for interim protection from the
lower court.
27. This Court is not expressing any opinion on the request learned advocate Mr. Puj
and learned Senior advocate Mr. Yatin Oza.
28. In view of the above, this application is dismissed.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

13-09-2021 (Page 11 of 11) www.manupatra.com Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University