The statutory powers of the investigating agency, the role of the public prosecutor, and the need to balance public and private interests in bail and anticipatory bail proceedings.

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 in-charge 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 2009 ALL M.R. 687 (Vinay Poddar Vs. State) 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 2007 (1) Crimes 222 (Ravindra Vs. State) 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 2013 ALL M.R. (Cri.) 861 [Kashinath Jairam Shetye Vs. Ramakant Mahadev Sawant & Ors.] the Division Bench of Panji Bench of this Court has referred Poddar' scase cited supra. The Division Bench was considering the application filed for cancellation of anticipatory bail. The Division Bench has made following observations:-

"21. In the course of hearing, Mr. Pangam submitted that at times the disposal of anticipatory bail applications are delayed on account of prolix and/or irrelevant lengthy submissions made by the first informant/complainant appearing in person who is not well versed with the legal provisions, which also ultimately delay disposal of such applications. In our view, although the complainant/first informant is entitled to be heard in an anticipatory bail application filed by the accused his rights are not unfettered and cannot be construed as giving him liberty to make submissions for any length of time. In our view, the interest of justice would be served if the complainant/first informant is called upon to file his say, in writing containing facts and legal submissions pointing out as to why the anticipatory bail should not be granted to the accused. If such a course is adopted, the same would save valuable time of the Court. No doubt, the complainant/first informant is entitled to make oral submissions, but in the event the complainant/first informant files his say pointing out the material available with him against the accused/the applicant seeking relief, the Sessions Judge would be in a position to restrict the oral hearing to be given to the applicant/intervenor, having regard to the material placed by the investigating agency against the accused. Moreover, the accused would also be in a position to meet the case set up by the complainant/first informant. Therefore, although we are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the case of Vinay Poddar (supra), that the complainant/first informant is entitled to be heard in an application for anticipatory bail filed by the accused, the same has to be understood in the light of the observations made above, so that the disposal of the anticipatory bail application is not delayed, thereby causing no prejudice either to the applicant or to the investigating agency. "

4. In Criminal Application No. 2458/2011 cited supra, this Court has h