GAJANAN BABANRAO JADHAV Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The application is filed for permission to intervene in the proceeding filed for relief of anticipatory bail. The learned counsel Shri. Jeevan Patil appointed by the original complainant wants to even address the Court to oppose the application. This Court had expressed that he can assist the learned A.P.P. and he can file documents and written arguments.

(2.) This Court, the undersigned, has held in Criminal Application No. 2458/2011 (from Aurangabad Bench) [Annasaheb Vs. Dr. Patil] that such counsel cannot be allowed to address the Court and at the most, he can assist the learned Public Prosecutor/Assistant Public Prosecutor appointed by the State and who is incharge of the case. It is also held by this Court that the original complainant can file written arguments and this is possible both in a proceeding filed for bail and anticipatory bail. In the case reported as (Vinay Poddar Vs. State, 2009 AllMR(Cri) 687) one Hon'ble Judge of this Court has held that in a proceeding filed for relief of anticipatory bail, the victim/original complainant has right to intervene, right to address the Court to oppose the application. However, in this reported case, the Hon'ble Single Judge has observed that the position of victim in a proceeding filed for relief of bail will be different and in that case, he may not be allowed to intervene.

(3.) In the past, in another case reported as (Ravindra Vs. State,2007 1 Crimes 222) another Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court had observed that the intervention needs to be allowed and that can be done even in application filed for relief of bail. In the case reported as [Kashinath Jairam Shetye Vs. Ramakant Mahadev Sawant & Ors., 2013 AllMR(Cri) 861] the Division Bench of Panji Bench of this Court has referred Poddar's case cited supra. The Division Bench was considering the application filed for cancellation of anticipatory bail. The Division Bench has made following observations :-