JUDGMENT :

Prithviraj K. Chavan, J.

1. These five applications seeking intervention in application for anticipatory bail are filed by the victim in order to assist the prosecution in this case with relevant facts, before this Court.

2. The applicants herein have been booked under Sections 143, 147, 341, 326, 307 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. by Fatorda police station on 20.05.2019 at 15.50 hrs. at Borda, Margao, Goa.

3. Earlier, the anticipatory bail applications filed by the applicants before the Sessions court were withdrawn. The applicants thereafter preferred second applications for anticipatory bail filed before the Sessions Court, which were rejected.

4. Heard Mr. V. Amonkar, learned Counsel for the applicants and Mr. Aran Braz de Sa, learned Counsel for the intervenor.

5. Mr. Amonkar drew my attention to a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sundeep Kumar Bafna Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr., (2014) 16 SCC 623) : [2014 ALL MR (Cri) 4113 (S.C.)]. My attention is drawn to para 32 of the judgment which reads thus:-

"32. The upshot of this analysis is that no vested right is granted to a complainant or informant or aggrieved party to directly conduct a prosecution. So far as the Magistrate is concerned, comparative latitude is given to him but he must always bear in mind that while the prosecution must remain being robust and comprehensive and effective it should not abandon the need to be free, fair and diligent. So far as the Sessions Court is concerned, it is the Public Prosecutor who must at all time remain in control of the prosecution and a counsel of a private party can only assist the Public Prosecutor in discharging its responsibility. The complainant or informant or aggrieved party may, however, be heard at a crucial and critical juncture of the trial so that his interests in the prosecution are not prejudiced or jeopardized. It seems to us that constant or even frequent interference in the prosecution should not be encouraged as it will have a deleterious impact on its impartiality. If the Magistrate or Sessions Judge harbours the opinion that the prosecution is likely to fail, prudence would prompt that the complainant or informant or aggrieved party be given an informal hearing. Reverting to the case in hand, we are of the opinion that the complainant or informant or aggrieved party who is himself an accomplished criminal lawyer and who has been represented before us by the erudite Senior Counsel, was not possessed of any vested right of being heard as it is manifestly evident that the Court has not formed any opinion adverse to the prosecution. Whether the accused is to be granted bail is a matter which can adequately be argued by the State Counsel. We have, however, granted a full hearing to Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Senior Advocate and have perused detailed written submissions since we are alive to the impact that our opinion would have on a multitude of criminal trials."

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court thus, observed that there is no vested right granted to the complainant or informant or aggrieved party to directly conduct the prosecution as it is the Public Prosecutor whose duty is to be in control of the prosecution and the private party can only assist the Public Prosecutor in discharge of its responsibility.

7. It is not a case where there is total bar to assist the prosecution even at the stage of conducting trial by private party. As a matter of fact, the learned Counsel has not drawn my attention to any part of the judgment by which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has mandated that even at the stage of hearing an application for anticipatory bail, the private party or complainant or even the victim is restrained from assisting the prosecution.

8. The learned Counsel has also placed reliance on a judgment of the Single Judge of this Court in the case of Gajanan Babanrao Jadhav Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., Criminal Application No. 4820 and 4556 of 2013. Para 17 to 20 of the said judgment reads th