1. The submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were heard on the last date. By this Criminal Application filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Code"), the Applicant has taken an exception to the Judgment and Order dated 13th August 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

2. The Applicant before this Court has filed an application seeking anticipatory bail under section 438 of the said Code before the Sessions Court at Mumbai apprehending his arrest in connection with the F.I.R No.103/2008. The said application for anticipatory bail is pending in the Sessions Court and interim protection has been granted in favour of the Applicant. The original Complainant at whose instance the F.I.R was registered, appeared before the Sessions Court through an Advocate. Miscellaneous Application No.549/2008 was filed by the Applicant-accused. The prayer in the said application was for declaration that the original Complainant and/or the Advocate for the Complainant have no right of audience in the anticipatory bail application. The said application has been rejected by the impugned order.

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.

4. The learned Counsel appearing for the original Complainant i.e. second Respondent invited my attention to the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of J.K.International (supra). He submitted that sections 301 and 302 itself recognise the role of a complainant in an inquiry or trial under the said Code. He submitted that in view of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, the complainant is entitled to play a role by appeari