Gujarat High Court
Ashok vs State on 26 December, 2011
Author: Z.K.Saiyed
Bench: Z.K.Saiyed
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.RA/543/2011 19/ 19 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 543 of 2011
======================================
ASHOK
GOVINDRAM HURRA - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 3 - Respondent(s)
======================================
Appearance
:
MR
YATIN OZA FOR MS RENU D CHAUDHARY for Applicant(s) : 1,
MR HL JANI
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED
BY DS for Respondent(s) : 2,
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for
Respondent(s) : 3,
MR.D K.PUJ for Respondent(s) :
4,
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date
: 26/12/2011
ORAL
ORDER
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 ivew 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?
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. Vs. 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. I twas 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 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 Vs. 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/s Delhi Administration and others [ 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/s State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Others [ 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 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 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).
11. 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 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."
10. 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 Vs. 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. Vs. State of Gujarat reported AIR 1988 Supreme Court 922 and submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that victim can assist the Public Prosecutor.
13. Learned senior advocate Mr. Raju relied upon the decision in the case of Makwana Sambhubhai Chothabhai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 1993 (1) GLH 331, wherein this Court has observed in para 5 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 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 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 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. "
14. Learned senior advocate Mr. Raju further relied upon the case of Varyabhai Jesangdas Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr. reported in 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 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 the Code."
20. 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."
21. Learned APP also submitted that even the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also considered said issue in the case of Abhilasha and Another Vs. 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 a s 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 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.
23. 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 Pubic 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 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 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.
(Z.K.SAIYED,J.) ynvyas Top